On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:06:42AM -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:59:00AM +1000, Null Ack wrote: > > Thanks very much guys :) > > > > Andreas, with your request for other examples here is a bug that I > > have been triaging as part of my work on Intrepid: > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/264571 > > > > Unlike some other examples, I didn't start this bug, cannot replicate > > it and am actively triaging the issue with the bug reporter. > > > > Here's another one that I didn't start. I did not agree with a > > previous comment about ignoring the EULA screen and I explained why > > reasons for it. When Mark Shuttleworth came into the bug and asked for > > suggestions about what could possibly be done, I responded with mine > > which he seemed pleased with. It's at: > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656 > > > > On the issue with not confirming your own bugs: > > > > * The documentation specifically states: > > > > When you have a complete report, and there is enough information to > > debug the program, you can confirm the report. How do you know there > > is enough information? Here are some example criteria, ANY of which is > > sufficient: > > > > * Is there a patch that claims to fix the bug? > > * Are there sufficient log files and crash dumps, as outlined in > > DebuggingProcedures? > > * Can you reproduce the bug yourself? > > * Does another distribution have a complete and confirmed bug? > > * Does the upstream author have a complete and confirmed bug? > > Which documentation are you quoting here?
I'm still curious about this as I'd like to update it. Thanks, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
