On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:48 -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- [snip] > > 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.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kio-umountwrapper/+bug/222791 > - no priority until the user responds
It was good that fixed the title of the report and referred the reporter to the code of conduct. He may have wanted to add in his comment that he fixed the offensive title for the reporter. The odd thing is that after he fixed the title (to "package kio-umountwrapper 0.2-0ubuntu6 failed to install/upgrade"), ffm also asked the reporter for the steps to reproduce the bug, the expected behavior, and the actual behavior. I think the answers to his questions are pretty clear from the title he added. He probably doesn't need the reporter to reiterate it. I think it would have been better if he had posted a comment that he tried to reproduce the issue to at least confirm or deny the bug. > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openoffice.org/+bug/222498 > - none as of yet, but if it is reproducible and not something esoteric, it > would have a "high" priority This bug's title could have definitely used some improvement. Also, it would have been good if he inquired about which version of OpenOffice was being used and then try to recreate the issue. Just stock replying asking for the steps to reproduce, expected behavior and actual behavior isn't very helpful when the reporter has already given enough information to answer these questions. > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-vfs/+bug/223922 - low Even though this was deemed as not a bug, it was good he tried creating the debdiff. > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-docs/+bug/223871 - > high, if it is reproducible, it is a core package. It was good he tried to reproduce the issue here. However, when he commented "I do not get that error when installing on a stock Ubuntu system." I think it would have been more informative to outline the steps he used to try and reproduce the issue and also provide version information regarding the packages he had installed. > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/curl/+bug/223855 - wishlist It was nice he attempted opening the upstream bug report. However, it was immediately closed because the wishlist request was already supported in libcurl 7.18.1 . It probably would have been better if ffm did a little more research to find this out before bothering the upstream devs with an already fixed request. Unfortunately I think ffm needs a little more time to try and improve on his triaging. Nack from me, sorry. Thanks, Leann _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+editemails More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
