Thanks for your feedback, I think I've choice the wrong bugs, maybe the following are ok: https://launchpad.net/bugs/251507 https://launchpad.net/bugs/211533 https://launchpad.net/bugs/248330 https://launchpad.net/bugs/252199 https://launchpad.net/bugs/47616
Thanks, Devid Antonio Filoni --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Emmet Hikory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ubuntu Bug Control" <[email protected]> Cc: "Devid Filoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Ubuntu-bugcontrol] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: d.filoni wants to join] Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:20:54 +0900 Brian Murray wrote: > This application to the Bug Control was e-mailed to me directly so I am > forwarding it for the team's consideration. I don't usually respond to these, and am unsure if my comments carry any weight in the context of a bug control application, but feel that this specific application is not sufficiently strong, and encourage the Bug Control administrators to request further examples of work prior to accepting the application. Specific reasoning follows: Devid Filoni wrote: >> 5) I also need to see a list of five or more bugs which you have >> triaged. These bugs should demonstrate your understanding of the triage >> process and how to properly handle bugs. If there is a bug in your list >> that does not have an importance indicate what importance you would give >> it after becoming a member of Ubuntu Bug Control. Please use urls in >> your list of bugs so I can more easily find them. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/varkon/+bug/246729 the importance of this should be wishlist > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/open-vm-tools/+bug/251926 the importance of this should be medium > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgphoto2/+bug/252408 the importance of this should be wishlist These three are all self-reported bugs, and seem to violate the guideline about triaging one's own bugs. While sometimes one has sufficient information to be certain of the bug, and that it contains sufficient information to meet triage guidelines, it is *always* best to ask for a second pair of eyes to ensure that the bug is indeed completely triaged, and that one hasn't forgotten something. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-python-desktop/+bug/220301 in this I changed the affected package I don't feel this bug received much triage: while the package name was corrected, it would certainly be interesting to know why that package was selected, and maybe some information on the nature of the bug in gnome-python-desktop. Some of this could be determined by package investigation, and some perhaps by discussion with the submitter. I'd be more likely to overlook this non-triage if the bug had been self-assigned for fix, and there was evidence of work with the larger development team to upload, as perhaps it's not so important to fill in all the details when one is fixing it, but in the absence of that I'd like to see more text. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xulrunner-1.9/+bug/252793 in this I changes the affected package Whlie the affected package was corrected, I'm not sure that the bug was triaged as such: it seems more a minor correction performed whilst someone else has declared they were working on a solution. It is precisely this sort of adjustment that led to previous discussions about "workflow bugs" and whether they should be triaged. While this certainly isn't a "workflow bug", it ought be safe to expect that if someone has committed to working on a solution, they would be best placed to set the package, and to perhaps communicate with them before making adjustments. In the hopes of reducing any possibility of such fuss in the future, I'd like this sort of minor adjustment without deeper triage to be discouraged in cases where someone has committed to fixing the bug, and hence not be used in support of an application. Note that I am familiar with Devid's work with the development team, and believe it to be of high quality. He has shown a willingness to tackle what others consider impossible problems, and a facility for coordination with several upstream groups (including cases where we have multiple upstreams that disagree on outstanding issues). I just don't feel that the bugs outlined above demonstrate sufficient facility with the triage process to warrant membership in the Bug Control team. That said, were this a selection of bugs reported by users, and fixed by Devid without long commentary, I'd feel that was an example of effective triage, although perhaps weakly documented, as it would demonstrate the ability to understand the problem from the bug description, and ensure there is sufficient information for a developer (Devid in this example) to prepare a solution (which I believe to be the primary goal of bug triage). -- Emmet HIKORY _____________________________________________________________ Are you a Techie? Get Your Free Tech Email Address Now! Visit http://www.TechEmail.com _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
