On 2014-07-19 02:02, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote: > Gunnar Hjalmarsson: >> Considering that a bug gets "confirmed" as soon as somebody besides the >> bug reporter states that it affects him/her, I think that confirmed bugs >> should always be included when looking for untouched bugs. > > But isn't confirming bugs a task rather related with the tester role > than with the triager one? > > Why shall bug triagers be looking at new bugs being most of them not > triageable without getting confirmation first, and specially having in > place a role specially intended for confirming?
Somehow I feel that you misunderstood what I tried to say. I agree that triagers should check out confirmed bugs. But new ones are also motivated to look at, since many of them are easily triagable. > Moreover, what is the point of confirming bug reports one by one? Not sure what you mean. If you think a bug is ready for the developers, you mark it "triaged", don't you? > If the bug is somehow relevant, wouldn't it be happening to at least two > people in the world while testing the software? Then why not spending > that time rather in finding bugs than in reading tons of invalid reports? I don't think there is an absolute truth here. -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
