Filing Bugs in Kubuntu

[Richard JOHNSON]

Hey,

I was working on some documentation this evening and I figured I would go
through and document filing bugs in Kubuntu. I went for the old way which
is now using DrKonqi instead of Apport. I remember people talking in the
past about filing bugs in Kubuntu at bugs.kde.org instead of Launchpad
because we don't have enough people to triage, and that we would utilize
KDE instead.

I went through meeting minutes and couldn't find anything to support that
decision, so I went to the mailing list and there was nothing there, and
then I went to the wiki and found our bug reporting procedure [1] which
specifies reporting bugs the old way.

I am sorry if I missed the discussion, but I am not going to sit here and
grep 5 years of IRC logs to try and piece it together. Was this a decision
that everyone voted on? If so, what was the reasoning behind this? I ask
that if you do provide reasoning that you do not state either of the
following:

 * Apport sucks, DrKonqi is better

or

 * Kubuntu is to small to triage

Apport sucks, DrKonqi is better is not a valid excuse. We should be filing
reports in Launchpad, everyone should be. When someone follows the
recommended and documented way of utilizing the Report a bug feature in the
Help Menu, it is going to KDE. How are we tracking these bugs? How are they
being triaged?

Kubuntu is to small to triage is another very bad excuse. KDE may be
larger, but it isn't large enough to throw resources at bugs which may very
well be valid. Only a few projects in KDE are triaging bugs rather quickly,
while there are still bugs filed from Kubuntu 3 and 4 years ago that
haven't been touched, even though the software has been updated many times
since the reports.

As you can probably tell, unless there is an amazing excuse to do it this
way, I find it bad practice. You can search through b.k.o and find a lot of
bugs that were Kubuntu related, or only valid in Kubuntu, that were marked
as invalid. If the reporter was lucky, someone may have said "File this in
Launchpad." I am fairly certain there are apps most of us don't use that
others are, and they are filing bugs upstream and we have no clue about
them.

If it is in deed the case, that bugs should be filed upstream and not LP,
is there an agreement at all with upstream on this? Is it in a policy
anywhere or documented anywhere? My guess is no to both of those.

[1] https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/Bugs/Reporting

-- 
 Name|  Richard JOHNSON
Title|  Developer
  WWW|  http://www.ubuntu.com
Email|  nixternal at ubuntu.com
GnuPG|  3578 0981 A21D D662 2A96  7623 F4C1 838C D8C4 4738
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-devel/attachments/20100122/151505a7/attachment.pgp