Re: Asking users to upstream

[chris hermansen]

Alberto and list,

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella <
es204904...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Thomas Ward:
> > At the point of checking if Upstream supports the version of the
> > software, then perhaps give an advisory to upstream.
>
> So shall I add now that very same recommendation?
>
>
Has this discussion generated any useful answer?

I haven't been asked by Alberto to file upstream reports, but I have been
recently asked to do so by Christopher Penalver in relation to bug 1444110;
and I have done so; and he has handled the linking with Launchpad and the
LibreOffice Bugzilla; and I have seen upstream reports coming back through
Launchpad, though not everything going on on Bugzilla is making it back to
Launchpad; and bug priority on Bugzilla has changed from high to highest.

So based on my limited evidence this seems to be working, and it seems like
a reasonable and decent sort of way to bring the bugs to the attention of
the upstream maintainers.  I recall a similar experience a few years back,
but not the details.

I get that filing an upstream bug request for an out of date, unsupported
version is not especially useful, but finding out that such is the case
seems potentially quite useful.

-- 
Chris Hermansen · clhermansen "at" gmail "dot" com

C'est ma façon de parler.
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[C de-Avillez]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:43:55 +0200
Alberto Salvia Novella  wrote:

> Thomas Ward:
> > (First character here is EMOJI - NonDisplay on Ubuntu +
> > Thunderbird). We've had this discussion MANY times prior with you
> > and on this list about using Emoji - don't.
> 
> Okay, you are right.
> 
> I promise I won't be posting emails with pictographs, at least while 
> Ubuntu LTS prints that horrible default character. And if the
> situation changed, I would be asking for your permission before
> posting them.

Please simply do not use them. You are assuming that, because you use
emojis, everybody else also does so.

This is not true (myself included). My emails are text-only, not HTML,
and no expectation of anything different. And we have to cater for
*all*, not only those that use, and can receive, emojis in emails.

There is a simple reason for that: text-only is the *common* base:
every email client supports it.

(Now, if I am texting, I will use emojis. No problems there.)

> On the other hand it's very sad not being able to use visuals, as I
> feel they bring plenty of dynamism when used adequately.

See above. It is, perhaps sad (personally, I do not understand why).
But it is certainly sadder when I receive an email with with them, and
lose the desired meaning.

> Perhaps string emoticons instead? (^_-)

Yes, please. Again, all email clients will display emoticons.

Cheers,

..C..

-- 
ab alio expectes alteri quod feceris


pgpXesKOh93Rf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Thomas Ward:

(First character here is EMOJI - NonDisplay on Ubuntu + Thunderbird).
We've had this discussion MANY times prior with you and on this list
about using Emoji - don't.


Okay, you are right.

I promise I won't be posting emails with pictographs, at least while 
Ubuntu LTS prints that horrible default character. And if the situation 
changed, I would be asking for your permission before posting them.


On the other hand it's very sad not being able to use visuals, as I feel 
they bring plenty of dynamism when used adequately.


Perhaps string emoticons instead? (^_-)


Thomas Ward:
> At the point of checking if Upstream supports the version of the
> software, then perhaps give an advisory to upstream.

So shall I add now that very same recommendation?



-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Fwd: Re: Asking users to upstream

[Thomas Ward]

Comments below.

On 04/28/2015 02:33 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Seems that I cannot longer mail the Quality team. Probably someone got
> angry with 🍘.
I've already had this discussion with Nicholas Skaggs again.  It was
decided previously as a matter of POLICY for this list to not use
Emoji.  And while the mailing list is supposed to filter it out, Unicode
ones can still make it in.

This is NOT the first time you've been told this, so once more, follow
that discussion and stop the emoji.  Like my prior emails had said too.

>  Forwarded Message ----
> Subject: Re: Asking users to upstream
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:44:26 +0200
> From: Alberto Salvia Novella 
> To: Ubuntu Quality Team 
>
>
> Javier Domingo Cansino:
>  > Ubuntu is not a bleeding edge distro and because of that, development
>  > upstream can be affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for
>  > example, users report all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the
>  > packaging. This flow however is damaging (IMO) when users are served
>  > outdated versions of programs.
>
> I think the only way to know is actually asking upstream.
>
> On the other hand, this issue is the reason why I only work on bugs in
> the current and future Ubuntu releases. So perhaps bugs in previous
> releases could be treated differently, if you have a better idea.
>
I think this is a case where we need to actually check the upstream
versions, for older releases.  There are multiple instances where I can
think this would be an issue, but it still needs to be checked by
triagers before asking upstreams.  Most upstreams will likely make the
'supported versions' list available.  At the point of checking if
Upstream supports the version of the software, then perhaps give an
advisory to upstream.  Or instruct users on how to check, or to check at
the upstream's website(s).


Thomas



-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Andrea Corbellini]

Alberto,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:33 PM Alberto Salvia Novella <
es204904...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seems that I cannot longer mail the Quality team. Probably someone got
> angry with 🍘.
>

All of your messages have been correctly delivered and appear on the
mailing list archives:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/2015-April/date.html

The specific message you have forwarded is here:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/2015-April/005954.html

and has appeared in my inbox a few hours ago.
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Fwd: Re: Asking users to upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Seems that I cannot longer mail the Quality team. Probably someone got 
angry with 🍘.


So I'm sending the message directly to you, as I don't know how long 
will it be on hold:



 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: Asking users to upstream
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:44:26 +0200
From: Alberto Salvia Novella 
To: Ubuntu Quality Team 

Thomas Ward:

Does upstream actually value this activity?  Do they have issues with
users who may be posting the bugs themselves to do the upstreaming when
they may not actually be able to provide enough information for such
upstream reports to be useful?


All reports at
<https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.tag=asked-to-upstream&orderby=-heat> 


were handled properly by their reporters.

What won't be a surprise, as they are asked to upstream only after the
report in Launchpad is complete. So they will figure out what upstream
expects.


Thomas Ward:
 > Are the bugs being linked correctly back in Launchpad, or are some
 > slipping through the cracks as comments only and not actually linked
 > bugs?

Looks like that's okay too.


Thomas Ward:
 > Have you done any spotchecks on upstreams, such as versions the bugs
 > are against being unsupported, or whether upstream is actually doing
 > anything with such upstreamed reports?  Does upstream end up with a
 > thousand duplicates as a result?  And if so, does that actually make
 > our users upstreaming the bugs worthwhile as a part of the "filing
 > the bug themselves" process?

 From all the bugs I just checked, I only remember one being marked as
duplicate. There was no one upstream said they didn't support.


Javier Domingo Cansino:
 > Ubuntu is not a bleeding edge distro and because of that, development
 > upstream can be affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for
 > example, users report all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the
 > packaging. This flow however is damaging (IMO) when users are served
 > outdated versions of programs.

I think the only way to know is actually asking upstream.

On the other hand, this issue is the reason why I only work on bugs in
the current and future Ubuntu releases. So perhaps bugs in previous
releases could be treated differently, if you have a better idea.



-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Thomas Ward:

Does upstream actually value this activity?  Do they have issues with
users who may be posting the bugs themselves to do the upstreaming when
they may not actually be able to provide enough information for such
upstream reports to be useful?


All reports at 
 
were handled properly by their reporters.


What won't be a surprise, as they are asked to upstream only after the 
report in Launchpad is complete. So they will figure out what upstream 
expects.



Thomas Ward:
> Are the bugs being linked correctly back in Launchpad, or are some
> slipping through the cracks as comments only and not actually linked
> bugs?

Looks like that's okay too.


Thomas Ward:
> Have you done any spotchecks on upstreams, such as versions the bugs
> are against being unsupported, or whether upstream is actually doing
> anything with such upstreamed reports?  Does upstream end up with a
> thousand duplicates as a result?  And if so, does that actually make
> our users upstreaming the bugs worthwhile as a part of the "filing
> the bug themselves" process?

From all the bugs I just checked, I only remember one being marked as 
duplicate. There was no one upstream said they didn't support.



Javier Domingo Cansino:
> Ubuntu is not a bleeding edge distro and because of that, development
> upstream can be affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for
> example, users report all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the
> packaging. This flow however is damaging (IMO) when users are served
> outdated versions of programs.

I think the only way to know is actually asking upstream.

On the other hand, this issue is the reason why I only work on bugs in 
the current and future Ubuntu releases. So perhaps bugs in previous 
releases could be treated differently, if you have a better idea.




-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Javier Domingo Cansino]

However, elaborating, I see ok if the users are reporting bugs for
up-to-date packages, which do not contain important patches.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Thomas Ward  wrote:

>
> On 04/27/2015 03:10 PM, Javier Domingo Cansino wrote:
>
>  I have one more concern, closely related to that last one. Ubuntu is not
> a bleeding edge distro and because of that, development upstream can be
> affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for example, users report
> all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the packaging. This flow however
> is damaging (IMO) when users are served outdated versions of programs.
>
>  Debian is in the same boat, though.  However, you are correct - the
> workflow of upstreaming 'outdated' software version bugs upstream can cause
> unnecessary noise and disruption in the upstream bug trackers, and that
> should be a consideration point for this workflow item of "upstreaming"
> things.
>
>
> Thomas
>



-- 
Javier Domingo Cansino
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Thomas Ward]

On 04/27/2015 03:10 PM, Javier Domingo Cansino wrote:
> I have one more concern, closely related to that last one. Ubuntu is
> not a bleeding edge distro and because of that, development upstream
> can be affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for example,
> users report all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the packaging.
> This flow however is damaging (IMO) when users are served outdated
> versions of programs.
>
Debian is in the same boat, though.  However, you are correct - the
workflow of upstreaming 'outdated' software version bugs upstream can
cause unnecessary noise and disruption in the upstream bug trackers, and
that should be a consideration point for this workflow item of
"upstreaming" things.


Thomas
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Javier Domingo Cansino]

I have one more concern, closely related to that last one. Ubuntu is not a
bleeding edge distro and because of that, development upstream can be
affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for example, users report
all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the packaging. This flow however
is damaging (IMO) when users are served outdated versions of programs.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Thomas Ward  wrote:

>
>
> On 04/27/2015 09:55 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> > Thomas Ward:
> >> For which upstreams?  I have only seen this with one or two upstream
> >> trackers, and not all the comments trace back for all upstreams.
> >
> > Oh, that can be right. Nevertheless the upstream report would still be
> > at the distance of a click.
> >
> That still doesn't resolve my initial concerns.  It also doesn't answer
> my prior questions (which I've expanded here) of:
>
>   * Does upstream actually value this activity?  Do they have issues
> with users who may be posting the bugs themselves to do the
> upstreaming when they may not actually be able to provide enough
> information for such upstream reports to be useful?
>   * Are the bugs being linked correctly back in Launchpad, or are some
> slipping through the cracks as comments only and not actually linked
> bugs?
>   * Have you done any spotchecks on upstreams, such as versions the bugs
> are against being unsupported, or whether upstream is actually doing
> anything with such upstreamed reports?  Does upstream end up with a
> thousand duplicates as a result?  And if so, does that actually make
> our users upstreaming the bugs worthwhile as a part of the "filing
> the bug themselves" process?
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thomas
> --
> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
> Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>



-- 
Javier Domingo Cansino
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Thomas Ward]

On 04/27/2015 09:55 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Thomas Ward:
>> For which upstreams?  I have only seen this with one or two upstream
>> trackers, and not all the comments trace back for all upstreams.
>
> Oh, that can be right. Nevertheless the upstream report would still be
> at the distance of a click.
>
That still doesn't resolve my initial concerns.  It also doesn't answer
my prior questions (which I've expanded here) of:

  * Does upstream actually value this activity?  Do they have issues
with users who may be posting the bugs themselves to do the
upstreaming when they may not actually be able to provide enough
information for such upstream reports to be useful?
  * Are the bugs being linked correctly back in Launchpad, or are some
slipping through the cracks as comments only and not actually linked
bugs?
  * Have you done any spotchecks on upstreams, such as versions the bugs
are against being unsupported, or whether upstream is actually doing
anything with such upstreamed reports?  Does upstream end up with a
thousand duplicates as a result?  And if so, does that actually make
our users upstreaming the bugs worthwhile as a part of the "filing
the bug themselves" process?

>
>
>

Thomas
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Brian Murray]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Thomas Ward:
> > What of the individuals doing the upstreaming, are they linking the
> > bugs correctly?
> 
> Alberto Salvia Novella:
> >   Please:
> >  1. Report to [UPSTREAM BUG TRACKER URL].
> >  2. Paste the new report URL here.
> >  3. Set this bug status back to "confirmed".
> >Thank you.
> 
> 👬 The reporter isn't who links the bug upstream, but a triager.
> 
> 
> Thomas Ward:
> > Have you actually validated the value *upstream* from Ubuntu on this?
> 
> 📺 As this dumps all the comments from upstream to Launchpad, all
> what's going on will be visible downstream too, won't it? So any
> mismatch should be obvious.

No, not every bug tracker has it's comments imported into Launchpad.

--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Thomas Ward:

For which upstreams?  I have only seen this with one or two upstream
trackers, and not all the comments trace back for all upstreams.


Oh, that can be right. Nevertheless the upstream report would still be 
at the distance of a click.




-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Thomas Ward]

On 04/27/2015 08:48 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Thomas Ward:
> > What of the individuals doing the upstreaming, are they linking the
> > bugs correctly?
>
> Alberto Salvia Novella:
> >   Please:
> >  1. Report to [UPSTREAM BUG TRACKER URL].
> >  2. Paste the new report URL here.
> >  3. Set this bug status back to "confirmed".
> >Thank you.
>
> 👬 The reporter isn't who links the bug upstream, but a triager.
>
(First character here is EMOJI - NonDisplay on Ubuntu + Thunderbird). 
We've had this discussion MANY times prior with you and on this list
about using Emoji - don't.
>
> Thomas Ward:
> > Have you actually validated the value *upstream* from Ubuntu on this?
>
> 📺 As this dumps all the comments from upstream to Launchpad, all
> what's going on will be visible downstream too, won't it? So any
> mismatch should be obvious.
For which upstreams?  I have only seen this with one or two upstream
trackers, and not all the comments trace back for all upstreams.

>
> Brendan Perrine:
> > How many of the bugs get fixed is the important metric and how
> > quickly they get fixed.
>
> 📩 For making it fast, original triagers can just subscribe to
> notifications and link upstream as soon as the bug gets confirmed back.
>
> 📊 And if you make the mean of days it took to triaged bugs in
>  to
> get triaged till the user was asked to upstream, it has been 10 days.
> Been the most frequently case the very same day, making the 50% of
> samples.
>
> 📉 Looking at
> 
> you can realize that the most grave and frequent bugs tend to be
> triaged months in advance of release.
The 'triaged' state means nothing if there's no work to fix it.  That's
our argument here.  Triaged != Fix Released.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>

And stop with the emoji please.


Thomas
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Thomas Ward:
> What of the individuals doing the upstreaming, are they linking the
> bugs correctly?

Alberto Salvia Novella:
>   Please:
>  1. Report to [UPSTREAM BUG TRACKER URL].
>  2. Paste the new report URL here.
>  3. Set this bug status back to "confirmed".
>Thank you.

👬 The reporter isn't who links the bug upstream, but a triager.


Thomas Ward:
> Have you actually validated the value *upstream* from Ubuntu on this?

📺 As this dumps all the comments from upstream to Launchpad, all what's 
going on will be visible downstream too, won't it? So any mismatch 
should be obvious.



Brendan Perrine:
> How many of the bugs get fixed is the important metric and how
> quickly they get fixed.

📩 For making it fast, original triagers can just subscribe to 
notifications and link upstream as soon as the bug gets confirmed back.


📊 And if you make the mean of days it took to triaged bugs in 
 to get 
triaged till the user was asked to upstream, it has been 10 days. Been 
the most frequently case the very same day, making the 50% of samples.


📉 Looking at 
 
you can realize that the most grave and frequent bugs tend to be triaged 
months in advance of release.





-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Brendan Perrine]

On Monday, April 27, 2015 1:46:53 AM UTC, Thomas Ward wrote:

Just because on our side (in Ubuntu / Launchpad) we see no expirations,

How many of the bugs get fixed is the improtant metric and how quickly they 
get fixed. A secondary importance could be how soon a workaround is found. 


--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Asking users to upstream

[Thomas Ward]

Have you actually validated the value *upstream* from Ubuntu on this?

Just because on our side (in Ubuntu / Launchpad) we see no expirations,
means nothing.

On 04/26/2015 07:07 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> As some of you already know, this cycle I have been performing an
> experiment where I ask users to upstream bugs themselves and see what
> happens.
>
> The idea has been that it's more valuable that is the affected user
> who speaks with the upstream developers instead a bug triager, while
> alleviating workload to these triagers.
>
> The procedure has been the following:
>
> 1. I say to the user:
>
>  Please:
>1. Report to [UPSTREAM BUG TRACKER URL].
>2. Paste the new report URL here.
>3. Set this bug status back to "confirmed".
>  Thank you.
>
> 2. I set the bug status to "incomplete".
> 3. I add the tag "asked-to-upstream"
> (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=asked-to-upstream).
> 4. I subscribe to notifications except comments.
>
>
> Just came to let you know that this has been quite successful. After
> doing this in 34 bugs, I only remember one or two that they expired
> due to inactivity. And even in this cases I received an email and
> reported the bug upstream myself. \
Expiration due to inactivity is not a factor.  What about actually
getting responses from upstream?  What of the individuals doing the
upstreaming, are they linking the bugs correctly?  Is Upstream saying
"This is not a supported version, update before testing." at all?  If
users aren't providing links to the upstreamed bugs, and Upstreams are
not saying "This is not a version we support anymore, you need to update
to our latest.", then we can consider it a success.

But relying solely on our status on this is a moot point - triage with
sending Upstream means we need to actually spot-check whether upstreams
actually want us to do this, or whether people are filing bugs against
versions of software which upstreams no longer support.
>
> So I wanted to suggest to include this as a recommendation in
> .
Have you actually done any of the spot checks, or checked to see if
upstreams (a) want this to continue, or (b) are not actually acting on
things, or (c) are actually acting on bug reports and moving fixes along
and making them available?

If you haven't done any checking on the *upstream* side of things, then
I don't think we can include this recommendation.  Not without spot
checking.
>
>
>
>

Thomas
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Asking users to upstream

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

As some of you already know, this cycle I have been performing an 
experiment where I ask users to upstream bugs themselves and see what 
happens.


The idea has been that it's more valuable that is the affected user who 
speaks with the upstream developers instead a bug triager, while 
alleviating workload to these triagers.


The procedure has been the following:

1. I say to the user:

 Please:
   1. Report to [UPSTREAM BUG TRACKER URL].
   2. Paste the new report URL here.
   3. Set this bug status back to "confirmed".
 Thank you.

2. I set the bug status to "incomplete".
3. I add the tag "asked-to-upstream" 
(https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=asked-to-upstream).

4. I subscribe to notifications except comments.


Just came to let you know that this has been quite successful. After 
doing this in 34 bugs, I only remember one or two that they expired due 
to inactivity. And even in this cases I received an email and reported 
the bug upstream myself.


So I wanted to suggest to include this as a recommendation in 
.



-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality