From sebastian.ro at gmx.de Sat Dec 1 10:59:51 2007 From: sebastian.ro at gmx.de (Sebastian) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:59:51 +0100 Subject: Bug link to release Message-ID: <1196506791.6245.1.camel@linux-pc> Hi, should we ask the user when he reporting a bug witch version of Ubuntu he/she use. So that we have an overview: Bug xxxxx Gutsy Bug xycyy Feisty etc. Sincerely, Sebastian Rode From sgevatter at ubuntu.cat Sat Dec 1 15:30:25 2007 From: sgevatter at ubuntu.cat (Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:30:25 +0100 Subject: Massive Tag Removal in Launchpad Message-ID: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> Hi, If you look on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ and expand the "Tags" side-panel you'll see that there's an enormous amount of defined tags, 1.736, to be exactly (see below for some more statistics). A lot of those tags were only used one or two times (1.152 are currently only being used by one or less open bugs, and the number of closed bugs for most of those isn't much higher), and are totally pointless ("1.4.16"? Wtf is that?; "adept", "alacarte": shouldn't it be assigned to the corresponding package?; "alt+f2": Uh??). So in order to get ride of all this crap and make the tag list a bit more overviewable (like now it's mostly useless, if you don't know a tag you won't find it there), I propose to remove all that tags that are only used on one or less open bugs (that is a 66% of them!). I could write a Python script that did that automatically (using launchpadbugs). As this would generate quite some bug mail (I have no exact number, but it might change up to somewhat like 2000-4000 bugs) persia told me to ask here about it. So... What do you think? Do you agree with this (in my opinion) necessary clean-up? -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Linux User #438657. Ubuntu User #11680. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tags Statistics: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of tags: 1736 Total number of known tags used: 38 / 40 Total number of open bugs that are tagged: 12958 Total number of open bugs with a known tag: 5086 Total number of tags with no open bugs: 451 Total number of tags with only one open bug: 701 Total sum of tags with one or less open bugs: 1152 Total sum of tags with more than one open bug: 584 (To generate them yourself copy the tags from Launchpad directly into a new text file, save the attached file, and then execute «python taglist-stats.py ») -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: taglist-stats.py Type: text/x-python Size: 3923 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pochu at ubuntu.com Sat Dec 1 15:42:29 2007 From: pochu at ubuntu.com (Emilio Pozuelo Monfort) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:42:29 +0100 Subject: Massive Tag Removal in Launchpad In-Reply-To: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> References: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <475180E5.10808@ubuntu.com> Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) wrote: > Hi, > > If you look on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ and expand the > "Tags" side-panel you'll see that there's an enormous amount of > defined tags, 1.736, to be exactly (see below for some more > statistics). > > A lot of those tags were only used one or two times (1.152 are > currently only being used by one or less open bugs, and the number of > closed bugs for most of those isn't much higher), and are totally > pointless ("1.4.16"? Wtf is that?; "adept", "alacarte": shouldn't it > be assigned to the corresponding package?; "alt+f2": Uh??). > > So in order to get ride of all this crap and make the tag list a bit > more overviewable (like now it's mostly useless, if you don't know a > tag you won't find it there), I propose to remove all that tags that > are only used on one or less open bugs (that is a 66% of them!). I > could write a Python script that did that automatically (using > launchpadbugs). > > As this would generate quite some bug mail (I have no exact number, > but it might change up to somewhat like 2000-4000 bugs) persia told me > to ask here about it. > > So... What do you think? Do you agree with this (in my opinion) > necessary clean-up? Hello Siegfried, I fully agree with you here. I find the tag list completely useless ATM. But instead of changing it from a script, why not ask (if there's agreement) the launchpad crew to do it from the DB if possible, without generating bug mail? Anyway if you need to generate some bug mail to achieve this, you have my +1. Best, Emilio > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From sgevatter at ubuntu.cat Sun Dec 2 10:09:25 2007 From: sgevatter at ubuntu.cat (Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:09:25 +0100 Subject: Massive Tag Removal in Launchpad In-Reply-To: <357b51820712020207h1c6bc8f0q83c9f8745cfee7df@mail.gmail.com> References: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> <200712012257.10861.ubuntu@kitterman.com> <357b51820712020207h1c6bc8f0q83c9f8745cfee7df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <357b51820712020209u6c0772fcu3d287234784cc8fe@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for your comment. I filed a bug about it here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/173415 -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Linux User #438657. Ubuntu User #11680. 2007/12/2, Scott Kitterman : - Oculta el text citat - > On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:30, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) > wrote: > > > So... What do you think? Do you agree with this (in my opinion) > > necessary clean-up? > > I'd suggest file a bug against LP and let the LP devs handle it. > > Scott K From gothicx at sapo.pt Sun Dec 2 11:09:48 2007 From: gothicx at sapo.pt (Marco Rodrigues) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:09:48 +0000 Subject: Massive Tag Removal in Launchpad In-Reply-To: <357b51820712020209u6c0772fcu3d287234784cc8fe@mail.gmail.com> References: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> <200712012257.10861.ubuntu@kitterman.com> <357b51820712020207h1c6bc8f0q83c9f8745cfee7df@mail.gmail.com> <357b51820712020209u6c0772fcu3d287234784cc8fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4752927C.1050708@sapo.pt> The correct link is: https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/173415 Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) wrote: > Thanks for your comment. I filed a bug about it here: > https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/173415 > > -- > Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) > Linux User #438657. Ubuntu User #11680. > > 2007/12/2, Scott Kitterman : > - Oculta el text citat - >> On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:30, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) >> wrote: >> >>> So... What do you think? Do you agree with this (in my opinion) >>> necessary clean-up? >> I'd suggest file a bug against LP and let the LP devs handle it. >> >> Scott K > -- Marco Rodrigues http://Marco.Tondela.org From siggi.gevatter at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 13:09:24 2007 From: siggi.gevatter at gmail.com (Siegfried-Angel) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:09:24 +0100 Subject: Massive Tag Removal in Launchpad In-Reply-To: <20071202130051.GB6112@piware.de> References: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> <20071202130051.GB6112@piware.de> Message-ID: <357b51820712020509h3ea5e4d7l970a4580330926e3@mail.gmail.com> We've (Hobbsee, Fujitsu, Kmos and me) have been speaking about this with Kiko and his proposal was to only show official bugs in the list (members of ubuntu-bugcontrol or somewhat like that would be allowed to mark tags as official), and add a page where all other tags were displayed (in a tag cloud perhaps, but there are a lot for that). It was also decided that the proposed clean-up is still necessary and that the Launchpad team should have a look at it. -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Linux User #438657. Ubuntu User #11680. 2007/12/2, Martin Pitt : > Hi, > > Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) [2007-12-01 16:30 +0100]: > > If you look on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ and expand the > > "Tags" side-panel you'll see that there's an enormous amount of > > defined tags, 1.736, to be exactly (see below for some more > > statistics). > > I fully agree. This is also why I have never believed in tagging, not > in LP (except for some properly annouced and well-used tags like > verification-needed, bitesize, and a few others), not with photos > (f-spot or flickr), nor anywhere else. The total lack of proper > definition makes them mostly useless IMHO. > > The fact that we now have this large number of mostly useless tags > shows that the system has not worked as intended. So while I agree to > cleaning it up (thank you for the initial research!), it would > certainly make sense to introduce a policy for future tags. Like a > wiki page documenting them, getting consensus about a new tag > somewhere, limit the definition of new tags to a certain team, etc. > > Thanks, > > Pitti From henrik at ubuntu.com Sun Dec 2 20:10:52 2007 From: henrik at ubuntu.com (Henrik Nilsen Omma) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:10:52 +0000 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated In-Reply-To: <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> References: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> Brian Murray wrote: > I have updated the Bug/Responses with something that tries to cover bugs > missing crash reports and those with ".crash" file attachments. It also > contains both ways to report the crash. Please let me know what you > think and thanks for bringing this to my attention. > Thanks for adding this info. The procedure involves closing the existing bug (which may have useful comments on it) and letting apport open a new one, which seems a bit of a cludge. Can we have apport save the output locally and ask the reporter to attach the files? Tht would admittedly work better when we can add multiple attachments to single comment as now we'll most likely get zip files. Still, it seems the right thing to do. Perhaps the apport GUI should grow an option to let you enter an existing bug number? Henrik From pochu at ubuntu.com Sun Dec 2 20:13:54 2007 From: pochu at ubuntu.com (Emilio Pozuelo Monfort) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:13:54 +0100 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated In-Reply-To: <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> References: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <47531202.6030702@ubuntu.com> Henrik Nilsen Omma wrote: > Brian Murray wrote: >> I have updated the Bug/Responses with something that tries to cover bugs >> missing crash reports and those with ".crash" file attachments. It also >> contains both ways to report the crash. Please let me know what you >> think and thanks for bringing this to my attention. >> > > Thanks for adding this info. The procedure involves closing the existing > bug (which may have useful comments on it) and letting apport open a new > one, which seems a bit of a cludge. > > Can we have apport save the output locally and ask the reporter to > attach the files? Tht would admittedly work better when we can add > multiple attachments to single comment as now we'll most likely get zip > files. Still, it seems the right thing to do. That will mean no retraces, and no checks for duplicates from the retracer. > > Perhaps the apport GUI should grow an option to let you enter an > existing bug number? That sounds good as long as the retracer is changed to then look at these new attachments and retrace the crash / check for duplicates. Cheers, Emilio > > Henrik > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From martin.pitt at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 3 07:06:59 2007 From: martin.pitt at ubuntu.com (Martin Pitt) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:06:59 +0100 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated In-Reply-To: <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> References: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <20071203070659.GD6380@piware.de> Hi, Henrik Nilsen Omma [2007-12-02 20:10 +0000]: > Brian Murray wrote: >> I have updated the Bug/Responses with something that tries to cover bugs >> missing crash reports and those with ".crash" file attachments. It also >> contains both ways to report the crash. Please let me know what you think >> and thanks for bringing this to my attention. >> > > Thanks for adding this info. The procedure involves closing the existing > bug (which may have useful comments on it) and letting apport open a new > one, which seems a bit of a cludge. > > Can we have apport save the output locally and ask the reporter to attach > the files? Tht would admittedly work better when we can add multiple > attachments to single comment as now we'll most likely get zip files. > Still, it seems the right thing to do. I reported this as a bug against apport, so that I don't forget about it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/173591 That still leaves the problem of finding such bugs, but that needs some help from the LP devs ("give me all bugs which have a *.crash attachment"). Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org From seb128 at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 3 08:34:09 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:34:09 +0100 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated In-Reply-To: <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> References: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <1196670849.8657.1.camel@seb128-desktop> Le mardi 27 novembre 2007 à 12:36 -0800, Brian Murray a écrit : > missing crash reports and those with ".crash" file attachments. It also > contains both ways to report the crash. Please let me know what you > think and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Hi, That looks good, thank you for doing the update Sebastien Bacher From seb128 at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 3 08:40:28 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:40:28 +0100 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated In-Reply-To: <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> References: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> <4753114C.6080702@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <1196671229.8657.8.camel@seb128-desktop> Le dimanche 02 décembre 2007 à 20:10 +0000, Henrik Nilsen Omma a écrit : > Thanks for adding this info. The procedure involves closing the existing > bug (which may have useful comments on it) and letting apport open a new > one, which seems a bit of a cludge. Hi, The useful information is often the backtrace there so, the correct way would be to teach apport to use an existant bug though, Martin has open a bug about that now Sebastien Bacher From pedro at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 3 12:58:02 2007 From: pedro at ubuntu.com (Pedro Villavicencio Garrido) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:58:02 -0300 Subject: Bug link to release In-Reply-To: <1196506791.6245.1.camel@linux-pc> References: <1196506791.6245.1.camel@linux-pc> Message-ID: <1196686682.5775.17.camel@thylacine> Hello, On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 11:59 +0100, Sebastian wrote: > Hi, > > should we ask the user when he reporting a bug witch version of Ubuntu > he/she use. > > So that we have an overview: > > Bug xxxxx Gutsy > Bug xycyy Feisty > Yes, that's part of the triage process, if after looked at the bug you didn't find the version of Ubuntu the reporter is using please ask him/her which version is running. When a bug is reported by apport it contain this info on the "DistroRelease" field and also you have the package version on the "Package" field (ie: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/92127). Thanks!. Regards, pedro. From sgevatter at ubuntu.cat Mon Dec 3 15:29:43 2007 From: sgevatter at ubuntu.cat (Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:29:43 +0100 Subject: Massive Tag Removal in Launchpad In-Reply-To: <357b51820712020509h3ea5e4d7l970a4580330926e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <357b51820712010730g723984fdte22009a93371d3b@mail.gmail.com> <20071202130051.GB6112@piware.de> <357b51820712020509h3ea5e4d7l970a4580330926e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <357b51820712030729q4a6e1639yb31af5cd749adf9e@mail.gmail.com> It seems my last mail hasn't arrived (I always forget to change the sender on GMail!)... Here is it again: We (Hobbsee, Fujitsu, Kmos and me) have been speaking about this with Kiko and his proposal was to only show official bugs in the list (members of ubuntu-bugcontrol or somewhat like that would be allowed to mark tags as official), and add a page where all other tags were displayed (in a tag cloud perhaps, but there are a lot for that). It was also decided that the proposed clean-up is still necessary and that the Launchpad team should have a look at it. -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) GNU/Linux User #438657. Ubuntu User #11680. 2007/12/2, Martin Pitt : - Oculta el text citat - > Hi, > > Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) [2007-12-01 16:30 +0100]: > > If you look on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ and expand the > > "Tags" side-panel you'll see that there's an enormous amount of > > defined tags, 1.736, to be exactly (see below for some more > > statistics). > > I fully agree. This is also why I have never believed in tagging, not > in LP (except for some properly annouced and well-used tags like > verification-needed, bitesize, and a few others), not with photos > (f-spot or flickr), nor anywhere else. The total lack of proper > definition makes them mostly useless IMHO. > > The fact that we now have this large number of mostly useless tags > shows that the system has not worked as intended. So while I agree to > cleaning it up (thank you for the initial research!), it would > certainly make sense to introduce a policy for future tags. Like a > wiki page documenting them, getting consensus about a new tag > somewhere, limit the definition of new tags to a certain team, etc. > > Thanks, > > Pitti From henrik at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 3 21:00:43 2007 From: henrik at ubuntu.com (Henrik Nilsen Omma) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:00:43 +0000 Subject: DebuggingProcedures and HelpingWithBugs - spreading the meme Message-ID: <47546E7B.9040904@ubuntu.com> Hi all, The bugsquad and debugging wiki page is in pretty good shape now and we should circulate it more widely. I see several bug reports where 4-5 people with seemingly good Linux knowledge have been discussing a problem amongst themselves but the debugging information needed by developers has not been asked for. Bug triagers use the debbung pages and stock reply pages to ask for the info and sometimes link to a debugging page like https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Debugging but users may not know where to look next time from that. I would imagine that those who see that link might remember to check it next time they have a similar problem, but might not know about https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bug say. We should try to tie these pages better together so that people are more likely to find this info themselves (ie. if one of the five people participating in the discussion knows about these pages, the info can be requested and the bug is triaged one step further). We should add a prominent link to DebuggingProcedures on each of these pages, perhaps in a display box with an icon, with text like: "Part of the debugging series. For detailed information on debugging a range of Ubuntu packages see DebuggingProcedures." We could also ask that bugsquad and bug-control members add this link to select replies (though perhaps not all): --- Ubuntu bug squad https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HelpingWithBugs https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures --- or similar. Thoughts? Henrik From leann at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 4 17:49:56 2007 From: leann at ubuntu.com (Leann Ogasawara) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:49:56 -0800 Subject: Hardy Kernel Source Package Change Message-ID: <1196790596.6266.21.camel@emiko> Hi All, I just wanted to pass along some information for those who don't already know. The Hardy Heron kernel source package has changed to just "linux". Please remember to target any Hardy kernel bug reports against this package and not "linux-source-2.6.24". Thanks! Leann https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 4 20:27:18 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:27:18 -0800 Subject: To Do List Message-ID: <20071204202718.GO20752@murraytwins.com> I've created a small list of manageable tasks[0] that would be worthwhile for us to do as a team. Please check it out and if you have any questions about the tasks listed let me know. Additionally, feel free to add any other ones that you think we should complete. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/TODO Thanks, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 10 15:25:01 2007 From: daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com (Daniel Holbach) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:25:01 +0100 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs Message-ID: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Hello everybody, in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. I heard good arguments for the bug bot in #ubuntu-bugs and good arguments for it to be somewhere else. What is the BugSquad's take on the idea? Have a nice day, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From gothicx at sapo.pt Mon Dec 10 15:33:38 2007 From: gothicx at sapo.pt (gothicx at sapo.pt) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:33:38 +0000 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <20071210153338.a7aqf4phuoowwckc@w18.mail.sapo.pt> Citando Daniel Holbach : > Hello everybody, > > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. > > I heard good arguments for the bug bot in #ubuntu-bugs and good > arguments for it to be somewhere else. > > What is the BugSquad's take on the idea? > > Have a nice day, > Daniel Hi! How about to filter bugs with "merge" or "sync" inside the subject and show them at #ubuntu-motu ? That will be nice to got some MOTU attention =) -- Marco Rodrigues http://Marco.Tondela.org From hggdh2 at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 15:51:39 2007 From: hggdh2 at gmail.com (HggdH) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:51:39 -0600 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <1197301899.15545.4.camel@localhost> On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:25 +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote: > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. I agree: let one channel just announce the new bugs, and let one channel be the discussion forum for triaging & bug discussion. #ubuntu-bugs-announce sound very good. Regards, -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From wolfger at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 15:54:52 2007 From: wolfger at gmail.com (Wolfger) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:54:52 -0500 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <3b00b3330712100754i1c9412f6rf63b13d05073ae81@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 10, 2007 10:25 AM, Daniel Holbach wrote: > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. I think that's a very good idea. I'm new to the BugSquad, but I find the chat room to generally be an inhospitable-looking string of bot announcements. I think keeping the bot around to spew info on demand is a good idea, but the auto-announce should be elsewhere. -- Wolfger http://wolfger.wordpress.com/ AOL IM: wolf4coyot Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer From jjesse at iserv.net Mon Dec 10 16:00:10 2007 From: jjesse at iserv.net (Jonathan Jesse) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:00:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197301899.15545.4.camel@localhost> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <1197301899.15545.4.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <47326.64.186.55.234.1197302410.squirrel@webmail.iserv.net> > On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:25 +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote: >> in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that >> the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related >> discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the >> bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. > > I agree: let one channel just announce the new bugs, and let one channel > be the discussion forum for triaging & bug discussion. > > #ubuntu-bugs-announce sound very good. > > Regards, > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > +1 vote for me -- Jonathan Jesse From gothicx at sapo.pt Mon Dec 10 16:05:23 2007 From: gothicx at sapo.pt (gothicx at sapo.pt) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:05:23 +0000 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <47326.64.186.55.234.1197302410.squirrel@webmail.iserv.net> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <1197301899.15545.4.camel@localhost> <47326.64.186.55.234.1197302410.squirrel@webmail.iserv.net> Message-ID: <20071210160523.x57lnmcgg800o88g@w18.mail.sapo.pt> Citando Jonathan Jesse : >> On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:25 +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote: >>> in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that >>> the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related >>> discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the >>> bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. I agree with that! +1 -- Marco Rodrigues http://Marco.Tondela.org From josephpiche at vehris.com Mon Dec 10 17:14:00 2007 From: josephpiche at vehris.com (Joseph Piche) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:14:00 -0600 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <20071210160523.x57lnmcgg800o88g@w18.mail.sapo.pt> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <1197301899.15545.4.camel@localhost> <47326.64.186.55.234.1197302410.squirrel@webmail.iserv.net> <20071210160523.x57lnmcgg800o88g@w18.mail.sapo.pt> Message-ID: I also think this is a good idea. Joseph Piche From brian at ubuntu.com Mon Dec 10 21:29:12 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:29:12 -0800 Subject: Hug Day - 12 December 2007 Message-ID: <20071210212911.GI20752@murraytwins.com> I'm happy to announce our next Hug Day on Wednesday, December 12th. We will be specifically triaging bugs reported about the ubiquity package - the installer used on the Live CD. The event will be held in #ubuntu-bugs. The list of targeted bugs has been posted at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071212 This list will be finalized shortly before the start of the 12th to ensure that all the bugs on it still need attention. Our goal is to deal with all of the bugs on that list. So on 12 December 2007, in all timezones, we'll be meeting in #ubuntu-bugs on irc.freenode.net for another Ubuntu Hug Day. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay While you are welcome to apply to join the Ubuntu Bug Control team anytime, Hug Day is a great day to join! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl If you're interested in helping, please stop by. And feel free to ask bdmurray, pedro, ogasawara, heno, evand and the rest of the team for ways to help out. We hope to see you there and your name on the list of bug triagers! Sincerely, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hobbsee at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 08:07:23 2007 From: hobbsee at ubuntu.com (Sarah Hobbs) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:07:23 +1100 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <475E453B.4010005@ubuntu.com> -1, as often people look at bugs in there, wondering "how do i start", and then pick one of the newly reported bugs. It's also yet another channel to join, but my main objection is the first one. Hobbsee Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello everybody, > > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. > > I heard good arguments for the bug bot in #ubuntu-bugs and good > arguments for it to be somewhere else. > > What is the BugSquad's take on the idea? > > Have a nice day, > Daniel > > From seb128 at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 09:35:28 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:35:28 +0100 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <475E453B.4010005@ubuntu.com> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <475E453B.4010005@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <1197365729.6279.0.camel@seb128-desktop> On mar, 2007-12-11 at 19:07 +1100, Sarah Hobbs wrote: > -1, as often people look at bugs in there, wondering "how do i start", > and then pick one of the newly reported bugs. > > It's also yet another channel to join, but my main objection is the > first one. That's my opinion as well, that's nice to be able to discuss coming bugs without having to join yet another channel Sebastien Bacher From hobbsee at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 10:26:51 2007 From: hobbsee at ubuntu.com (Sarah Hobbs) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:26:51 +1100 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello everybody, > > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. For those who wish for a quieter channel, I would suggest using the ignore function on their IRC clients, which will allow them to ignore ubotu, usually per-channel. Hobbsee From alexm at alexm.org Tue Dec 11 10:33:30 2007 From: alexm at alexm.org (Alex Muntada) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:33:30 +0100 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <35064d940712110233h7430214fw6809b924ebeb1afe@mail.gmail.com> * Sarah Hobbs : > For those who wish for a quieter channel, I would suggest using the > ignore function on their IRC clients, which will allow them to ignore > ubotu, usually per-channel. That's exactly what I usually do each time I join #ubuntu-bugs, which isn't not very often later though... :-( FWIW, it makes more sense to me a special #ubuntu-bugs-meeting than a #ubuntu-bugs-announce for just ubotu, so my vote is also -1 -- Alex Muntada http://alexm.org/ From daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 10:33:58 2007 From: daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com (Daniel Holbach) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:33:58 +0100 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <1197369238.19125.91.camel@bert> Please note that I'm not that much involved with the BugSquad at the moment, but here's just my general thoughts. On Di, 2007-12-11 at 21:26 +1100, Sarah Hobbs wrote: > For those who wish for a quieter channel, I would suggest using the > ignore function on their IRC clients, which will allow them to ignore > ubotu, usually per-channel. * ubotu is generally useful. Ignoring it is probably not what people want. * Just looking at the discussion thread it feels to me that there's a disconnect between the interests of developers and people doing Bug triage and might be new to the team. * People who are in the Bug Squad community don't really have a 'home' to discuss things in. #ubuntu-bugs is far too noisy for that. Have a nice day, Daniel From henrik at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 13:30:44 2007 From: henrik at ubuntu.com (Henrik Nilsen Omma) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:30:44 +0000 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197369238.19125.91.camel@bert> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> <1197369238.19125.91.camel@bert> Message-ID: <475E9104.5010106@ubuntu.com> Daniel Holbach wrote: > > > * ubotu is generally useful. Ignoring it is probably not what > people want. > And the new contributors are less likely to know how to tweak their IRC client to filter these messages. > * Just looking at the discussion thread it feels to me that > there's a disconnect between the interests of developers and > people doing Bug triage and might be new to the team. > * People who are in the Bug Squad community don't really have a > 'home' to discuss things in. #ubuntu-bugs is far too noisy for > that. My vote is +1 that we should move the by-default bug announcements as the channel currently feels very noisy. Could we teach ubotu a command to show the last 3 reported bugs on request? Henrik From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 16:18:19 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:18:19 -0800 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <20071211161819.GL20752@murraytwins.com> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:25:01PM +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello everybody, > > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. > > I heard good arguments for the bug bot in #ubuntu-bugs and good > arguments for it to be somewhere else. > > What is the BugSquad's take on the idea? One interesting idea would be to have the bug bot announce only a subset of the new bugs being reported. The no package bug day reminded us that there are quite a few bugs submitted without a package and that this is a large blind spot for us. Additionally, I think assigning bugs to a package can be a relatively easy task and is a good starting point for new triagers. Subsequently, I'd like to see an experiment where the bug bot only announced bugs without a package and see how that affects the noise in #ubuntu-bugs. -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From persia at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 11 16:38:56 2007 From: persia at ubuntu.com (Emmet Hikory) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:38:56 +0900 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197369238.19125.91.camel@bert> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> <475E65EB.2020803@ubuntu.com> <1197369238.19125.91.camel@bert> Message-ID: <9bd2f8970712110838n532fd991xd693c750c0ae929@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 7:33 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote: > * ubotu is generally useful. Ignoring it is probably not what > people want. Especially as an /ignore means that we don't see the URL & status hints when a bug is specifically under discussion. > * People who are in the Bug Squad community don't really have a > 'home' to discuss things in. #ubuntu-bugs is far too noisy for > that. For those that don't feel this pain, I'd suggest that switching to an alternate channel by default, and not idling in #ubuntu-bugs would likely meet their needs, as many members of BugSquad may also idle in #ubuntu-bugs-announce to catch new bugs, and could continue to provide some of the current input. On Dec 12, 2007 1:18 AM, Brian Murray wrote: > One interesting idea would be to have the bug bot announce only a subset > of the new bugs being reported. The no package bug day reminded us that > there are quite a few bugs submitted without a package and that this is > a large blind spot for us. Additionally, I think assigning bugs to a > package can be a relatively easy task and is a good starting point for > new triagers. Subsequently, I'd like to see an experiment where the bug > bot only announced bugs without a package and see how that affects the > noise in #ubuntu-bugs. This sounds interesting, but I think it would also be interesting to have a channel that does announce all the bugs. About 20% of those I triage are a direct result of seeing something that either has an obvious solution or is obviously invalid. In the absence of this, I'd likely only triage the bugs of packages to which I was subscribed, those of some of my regular Malone searches, and others I encountered while engaged in other activities. Further, if the volume of these bugs was high enough to block coordination, I'd suggest we'd do better to have a place to discuss things directly, rather than allow the coordination channel to again fill with bot posts. -- Emmet HIKORY From knightlust at ubuntu.com Wed Dec 12 11:08:29 2007 From: knightlust at ubuntu.com (Dax Solomon Umaming) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:08:29 +0800 Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> References: <1197300301.16278.4.camel@lovegood> Message-ID: <200712121908.34664.knightlust@ubuntu.com> On Monday 10 December 2007 11:25:01 pm Daniel Holbach wrote: > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention that > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage related > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. It is being used as a channel for bug and triage related discussion, the noise hasn't stopped anyone from doing so. However, I feel that we do need to make it less noisy. Maybe report new bugs every 5 or 10 mins? > The proposal was to move the > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. -1 for me, if #ubuntu-bugs would be used for bug and triage related stuff, then we need to see new bug reports. The channel is a tool, and so is the bug bot. And I want to see my tools on one location. -- Dax Solomon Umaming http://knightlust.com/ GPG: 0x715C3547 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From kirrus at kirrus.co.uk Wed Dec 12 11:26:17 2007 From: kirrus at kirrus.co.uk (Kirrus) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:26:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Bug Announces in #ubuntu-bugs In-Reply-To: <200712121908.34664.knightlust@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <29243983.28391197458777854.JavaMail.root@scalix> > On Monday 10 December 2007 11:25:01 pm Daniel Holbach wrote: > > in a recent discussion with Emmet it was brought to my attention > that > > the #ubuntu-bugs channel could be used for more bug and triage > related > > discussions, if the bug bot was less noisy. > > The proposal was to move the > > bug announces to #ubuntu-bugs-announce. +1 from me. I have a number of channels open, and I tend to ignore #ubuntu-bugsquad, as more often than not the new message notification is just another new bug entering the system. I do sometimes look at the announcements, to see if there is any I can quickly deal with. From seb128 at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 13 09:08:51 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:08:51 +0100 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport Message-ID: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> Hi, That's somewhat similar to the mail I sent some time ago about the standard response when the bug lacks a .crash. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses still lists "Missing a back trace Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. Please try to obtain a backtrace following the instructions at [WWW] http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash and upload the backtrace (as an attachment) to the bug report. This will greatly help us in tracking down your problem." Is that reply still required? It would make sense to use the "Missing a crash report or having a .crash attachment" one which guide the user to use apport rather than having to deal with gdb to get the informations Sebastien Bacher From pedro at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 13 11:33:05 2007 From: pedro at ubuntu.com (Pedro Villavicencio Garrido) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:33:05 -0300 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> Message-ID: <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> Hello, On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Hi, > > That's somewhat similar to the mail I sent some time ago about the > standard response when the bug lacks a .crash. > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses still lists > > "Missing a back trace > > Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make > Ubuntu better. Please try to obtain a backtrace following the > instructions at [WWW] http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash and > upload the backtrace (as an attachment) to the bug report. This will > greatly help us in tracking down your problem." > > Is that reply still required? It would make sense to use the "Missing a > crash report or having a .crash attachment" one which guide the user to > use apport rather than having to deal with gdb to get the informations > I think the first step should be what you said, ask to the reporter for a apport report and if the auto retracer doesn't work then probably ask for the possibility of get one with gdb. Regards, pedro. From emmet.hikory at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 12:01:20 2007 From: emmet.hikory at gmail.com (Emmet Hikory) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:01:20 +0900 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> Message-ID: <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2007 8:33 PM, Pedro Villavicencio Garrido wrote: > On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:08 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > "Missing a back trace > > > > Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make > > Ubuntu better. Please try to obtain a backtrace following the > > instructions at [WWW] http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash and > > upload the backtrace (as an attachment) to the bug report. This will > > greatly help us in tracking down your problem." > > > > Is that reply still required? It would make sense to use the "Missing a > > crash report or having a .crash attachment" one which guide the user to > > use apport rather than having to deal with gdb to get the informations > > > > I think the first step should be what you said, ask to the reporter for > a apport report and if the auto retracer doesn't work then probably ask > for the possibility of get one with gdb. Actually, I often find gdb-generated backtraces to be of strictly limited utility, unless the reporter happens to have all the relevant -dbgsym packages installed, and will likely work on reproducing the bug from the description, rather than trying to understand the backtrace. If apport can't upload the report, and the reporter can manually upload the apport-generated report file, it's then easier to get a useful stacktrace by retracing. -- Emmet HIKORY From seb128 at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 13 14:50:47 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:50:47 +0100 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197557447.19173.4.camel@seb128-desktop> On jeu, 2007-12-13 at 21:01 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: > backtrace. If apport can't upload the report, and the reporter can > manually upload the apport-generated report file, it's then easier to > get a useful stacktrace by retracing. Hi, Did you run into bugs where apport was not able to upload the report? That looks like a corner case or an apport bug. Retracing requires having the exact same versions of the packages installed and we usually don't deal with attached .crash very quickly, which means it's hard to retrace those. The number of bugs is already higher than what we can deal with and important bugs often get reported again quickly we have no real need to make special efforts to deal with non-apport generated crashed Sebastien Bacher From emmet.hikory at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 16:22:11 2007 From: emmet.hikory at gmail.com (Emmet Hikory) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:22:11 +0900 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <1197557447.19173.4.camel@seb128-desktop> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> <1197557447.19173.4.camel@seb128-desktop> Message-ID: <9bd2f8970712130822h2d28cf62tee0ef3a66a19c6af@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2007 11:50 PM, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Did you run into bugs where apport was not able to upload the report? Only a couple where the reporter indicated there was some issue with the relation between apport and complexities of a local proxy environment. > That looks like a corner case or an apport bug. Retracing requires > having the exact same versions of the packages installed and we usually > don't deal with attached .crash very quickly, which means it's hard to > retrace those. For crashes in stable releases, I feel we have a much better chance of being able to retrace a report successfully, as the package set remains basically constant. For crashes in the development release, I agree wholeheartedly. > The number of bugs is already higher than what we can > deal with and important bugs often get reported again quickly we have no > real need to make special efforts to deal with non-apport generated > crashed Maybe I don't understand then. I do want the apport generated crash report, but if apport itself runs into some problem uploading (maybe the crash happened while the reporter did not have internet access (e.g. on a plane)), I'd rather see the apport crash bundle in the bug for analysis than either a gdb generated backtrace or no bug at all (assuming that frequently reported bugs are properly marked as duplicate). For some of universe there is a sufficiently low number of users that a given bug may go undetected for 8 months, which is less than ideal. By encouraging the attachment of the apport report where apport failed due to proxies or interrupted internet access or other similar reasons, we have a better chance of addressing these in a timely manner. To put it another way, I'd be much happier if we had 500,000 open well-triaged bugs than 0 open bugs. In the former case, there's a clear indication of what needs to be done (although we may not be able to finish in any reasonable time), whereas in the latter case, we have no idea what is wrong with the system. -- Emmet HIKORY From pochu at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 13 16:40:42 2007 From: pochu at ubuntu.com (Emilio Pozuelo Monfort) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:40:42 +0100 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <9bd2f8970712130822h2d28cf62tee0ef3a66a19c6af@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> <1197557447.19173.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <9bd2f8970712130822h2d28cf62tee0ef3a66a19c6af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4761608A.4000500@ubuntu.com> Emmet Hikory wrote: > Maybe I don't understand then. I do want the apport generated > crash report, but if apport itself runs into some problem uploading > (maybe the crash happened while the reporter did not have internet > access (e.g. on a plane)), I'd rather see the apport crash bundle in > the bug for analysis than either a gdb generated backtrace or no bug > at all (assuming that frequently reported bugs are properly marked as > duplicate). In that case you can ask the reporter to open /var/crash with nautilus and double click the crash file. It will trigger apport to upload it to launchpad. It will open a new report though. Not probably ideal, but it's not possible to apport to attach a crash to an open bug yet. That's bug 124338 [1] Cheers. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/124338 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From emmet.hikory at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 16:43:30 2007 From: emmet.hikory at gmail.com (Emmet Hikory) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:43:30 +0900 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <4761608A.4000500@ubuntu.com> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> <1197557447.19173.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <9bd2f8970712130822h2d28cf62tee0ef3a66a19c6af@mail.gmail.com> <4761608A.4000500@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <9bd2f8970712130843i323e6712ha136b95abad64363@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2007 1:40 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Emmet Hikory wrote: > > Maybe I don't understand then. I do want the apport generated > > crash report, but if apport itself runs into some problem uploading > > (maybe the crash happened while the reporter did not have internet > > access (e.g. on a plane)), I'd rather see the apport crash bundle in > > the bug for analysis than either a gdb generated backtrace or no bug > > at all (assuming that frequently reported bugs are properly marked as > > duplicate). > > In that case you can ask the reporter to open /var/crash with nautilus and > double click the crash file. It will trigger apport to upload it to launchpad. > It will open a new report though. Not probably ideal, but it's not possible to > apport to attach a crash to an open bug yet. That's bug 124338 [1] Excellent then. I just didn't understand. In that case, I agree with Sebastian, with the provision that we should encourage people having trouble with apport due to network issues to open a new report as described above. -- Emmet HIKORY From evand at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 13 20:11:20 2007 From: evand at ubuntu.com (Evan Dandrea) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:11:20 -0500 Subject: Thanks for making the hug day a success Message-ID: <1197576680.17742.11.camel@candy> I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who participated in the Ubiquity hug day. If I'm reading these graphs correctly, you were able to move over 100 bugs out of New and were able to confirm roughly 50 more, which is an enormous help to those of us who find ourselves constantly buried under the mountain of Ubiquity bugs. Keep up the great work, and thanks again, Evan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From seb128 at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 13 21:56:07 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:56:07 +0100 Subject: Encourage users to get backtraces using apport In-Reply-To: <9bd2f8970712130822h2d28cf62tee0ef3a66a19c6af@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197536931.8584.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <1197545585.7012.7.camel@thylacine> <9bd2f8970712130401x3148917aw17343165ef1c6a4e@mail.gmail.com> <1197557447.19173.4.camel@seb128-desktop> <9bd2f8970712130822h2d28cf62tee0ef3a66a19c6af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1197582967.11646.10.camel@seb128-desktop> Hey, On ven, 2007-12-14 at 01:22 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: > For crashes in stable releases, I feel we have a much better > chance of being able to retrace a report successfully, as the package > set remains basically constant. For crashes in the development > release, I agree wholeheartedly. Right stable bugs can usually be retraced, still it's easier to let launchpad do the retracing and the duplication when required than having the bugsquad doing the work there > > The number of bugs is already higher than what we can > > deal with and important bugs often get reported again quickly we have no > > real need to make special efforts to deal with non-apport generated > > crashed > > Maybe I don't understand then. I do want the apport generated > crash report, but if apport itself runs into some problem uploading > (maybe the crash happened while the reporter did not have internet You can send the apport bug whenever you want, the .crash is stored on the disk and you just have to double click on it to send the bug, a bug sent using this method is automatically retraced > To put it another way, I'd be much happier if we had 500,000 open > well-triaged bugs than 0 open bugs. In the former case, there's a > clear indication of what needs to be done (although we may not be able > to finish in any reasonable time), whereas in the latter case, we have > no idea what is wrong with the system. Did you look at the bug load on launchpad? The discussion is not between lot of bugs or none there, there already a high volume and better quality benefit to anybody, submitter and triagers Sebastien Bacher From mgunes at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 18 03:02:06 2007 From: mgunes at ubuntu.com (Murat Gunes) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:02:06 +0200 Subject: Tag consolidation Message-ID: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> Hi, I've pointed two people (one MOTU hopeful and one who'd like to get started in triaging bugs) to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags , among other wiki pages, and both immediately got back to me asking why there were some redundant tags there. This has been on my mind for a while too, but I've lacked the time and energy to discuss it with the rest of the team, until today. 1) Why do we have two separate tags for small bugs that are ideal for new contributors, namely, "ubuntulove" and "bitesize"? Is there a real difference between them? If there is, it's not made clear in /Bugs/Tags at the moment. If one has been deprecated, it should be removed from the list. 2) What exactly is the distinction between "metabug" and "likely-dup"? Is it that "likely-dup" also points to the possible existence of an upstream bug, beside that of a duplicate in Ubuntu? That is the obvious interpretation, but it still leaves room for some doubt. If this is the case, a combination of the following can be done to convey the difference better: * Better wording can be used to underline the distinction * Listing these tags consecutively may better communicate that they're both actively used (right now it can be interpreted as if one was deprecated, and accidentally left there after the other was added) * "likely-dup" can be deprecated and a separate tag for "possible upstream bug" can be introduced, to be used in combination with "metabug", as well as independently. I'm not sure the concept of a duplicate works well across bug trackers, and/or that there are enough use cases to warrant having a single tag for two things. This is just an idea I'm throwing out there though; I do feel I may be wrong and I'd love to hear good arguments against it. 3) Isn't "needs-improvement" superseded by Malone's mentoring feature, and the "Incomplete" status? I feel some consolidation could be beneficial. What do others think? m. From ubuntu+lists at thequod.de Tue Dec 18 03:40:07 2007 From: ubuntu+lists at thequod.de (dAniel hAhler) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:40:07 +0100 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> Message-ID: <200712180440.08380.ubuntu+lists@thequod.de> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 04:02:06 Murat Gunes wrote: > 2) What exactly is the distinction between "metabug" and "likely-dup"? I've thought that "likely-dup" means that the bug marked with it is likely a duplicate, whereas "metabug" means that "it's likely to get many duplicates". -- http://daniel.hahler.de/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From emmet.hikory at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 03:59:12 2007 From: emmet.hikory at gmail.com (Emmet Hikory) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:59:12 +0900 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <200712180440.08380.ubuntu+lists@thequod.de> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> <200712180440.08380.ubuntu+lists@thequod.de> Message-ID: <9bd2f8970712171959n698fdb74j93ac459b3084c11e@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 18, 2007 12:40 PM, dAniel hAhler wrote: > On Tuesday 18 December 2007 04:02:06 Murat Gunes wrote: > > > 2) What exactly is the distinction between "metabug" and "likely-dup"? > > I've thought that "likely-dup" means that the bug marked with it is likely a > duplicate, whereas "metabug" means that "it's likely to get many duplicates". Why do we use likely-dup again? Is this for things like the missing libpre.so.3 bugs getting filed against flashplugin-nonfree or nspluginwrapper when they actually duplicate 176653 against ia32-libs, but as triagers we can't find the master bug? -- Emmet HIKORY From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 18 04:28:57 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:28:57 -0800 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <9bd2f8970712171959n698fdb74j93ac459b3084c11e@mail.gmail.com> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> <200712180440.08380.ubuntu+lists@thequod.de> <9bd2f8970712171959n698fdb74j93ac459b3084c11e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071218042857.GD10489@murraytwins.com> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:59:12PM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 12:40 PM, dAniel hAhler wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 December 2007 04:02:06 Murat Gunes wrote: > > > > > 2) What exactly is the distinction between "metabug" and "likely-dup"? > > > > I've thought that "likely-dup" means that the bug marked with it is likely a > > duplicate, whereas "metabug" means that "it's likely to get many duplicates". > > Why do we use likely-dup again? Is this for things like the > missing libpre.so.3 bugs getting filed against flashplugin-nonfree or > nspluginwrapper when they actually duplicate 176653 against ia32-libs, > but as triagers we can't find the master bug? I've always thought of "likely-dup" as a bug that sounds familiar to a triager but they can't find the master bug for whatever reason. These 'likely-dup' bugs should then be reviewed regularly and consolidated into the "metabug"s. We currently have 51 at the moment and someone should go over them soon so I have added it to the to do list[0]. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/TODO Thanks, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Dec 18 04:38:45 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:38:45 -0800 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> Message-ID: <20071218043845.GE10489@murraytwins.com> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:02:06AM +0200, Murat Gunes wrote: > Hi, > > 1) Why do we have two separate tags for small bugs that are ideal for > new contributors, namely, "ubuntulove" and "bitesize"? Is there a real > difference between them? If there is, it's not made clear in /Bugs/Tags > at the moment. If one has been deprecated, it should be removed from the > list. I believe these tags were added by the MOTU team so it would be best to check with them. > 2) What exactly is the distinction between "metabug" and "likely-dup"? > Is it that "likely-dup" also points to the possible existence of an > upstream bug, beside that of a duplicate in Ubuntu? That is the obvious > interpretation, but it still leaves room for some doubt. If this is the > case, a combination of the following can be done to convey the > difference better: > > * Better wording can be used to underline the distinction I've tried to clear up the wording of both of them. Please let me know what you think. > * Listing these tags consecutively may better communicate that they're > both actively used (right now it can be interpreted as if one was > deprecated, and accidentally left there after the other was added) I have reordered them as you suggested - thanks! > * "likely-dup" can be deprecated and a separate tag for "possible > upstream bug" can be introduced, to be used in combination with > "metabug", as well as independently. I'm not sure the concept of a > duplicate works well across bug trackers, and/or that there are enough > use cases to warrant having a single tag for two things. This is just an > idea I'm throwing out there though; I do feel I may be wrong and I'd > love to hear good arguments against it. > > 3) Isn't "needs-improvement" superseded by Malone's mentoring feature, > and the "Incomplete" status? I created this tag because there isn't mentoring for triaging. Mentoring is supposed to be used when someone is willing to help another person to write the code to fix the bug. However, I believe I'm the only one who tagged bugs as "needs-improvement" and it never really took off so it could be removed. Thanks for bringing all of this up! -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mgunes at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 20 01:03:38 2007 From: mgunes at ubuntu.com (Murat Gunes) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:03:38 +0200 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <20071218043845.GE10489@murraytwins.com> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> <20071218043845.GE10489@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <1198112618.12721.71.camel@232> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 20:38 -0800, Brian Murray wrote: > I believe these tags were added by the MOTU team so it would be best to > check with them. I'll post to ubuntu-motu about it then. > I've tried to clear up the wording of both of them. Please let me know > what you think. I find the new wording much better; thanks. > I created this tag because there isn't mentoring for triaging. > Mentoring is supposed to be used when someone is willing to help another > person to write the code to fix the bug. However, I believe I'm the > only one who tagged bugs as "needs-improvement" and it never really took > off so it could be removed. I think it's quite fine to have a tag with this purpose, but especially for someone who hasn't read the description (in a while), "needs-improvement" may look as if it's redundant with "Incomplete", as if it suggests that the original report itself needs improving. Especially since most bugs which are tagged with it will be in "Incomplete" status, the tag itself should emphasize the fact that a triager is offering mentoring for triaging bug, rather than the fact that the bug needs improvement, which is what the status most likely already conveys. Thus, I suggest replacing it with an equivalent of "triage-mentoring-available", which is quite long, but probably still usable if nobody comes up with a better idea. I've also edited the description; let me know if it's fine. > Thanks for bringing all of this up! You're welcome, and thanks for your attention. m. From daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com Thu Dec 20 16:17:59 2007 From: daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com (Daniel Holbach) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:17:59 +0100 Subject: Tags for small bugs In-Reply-To: <1198167287.19123.2.camel@232> References: <1198114366.12721.80.camel@232> <1198131965.6908.5.camel@bert> <1198161858.7684.1.camel@seb128-desktop> <1198167287.19123.2.camel@232> Message-ID: <1198167479.11018.1.camel@bert> On Do, 2007-12-20 at 18:14 +0200, Murat Gunes wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. I'll re-tag all "ubuntulove" bugs as "bitesize" > later today, and edit /Bugs/Tags accordingly, if there are no further > objections. > > On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 15:44 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > On jeu, 2007-12-20 at 07:26 +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote: > > > > > > > > Sébastien: is this tag still used a lot? Do you think it makes sense to > > > merge 'ubuntulove' and 'bitesize'? > > > > I don't think we have use the tag in a while and I think having one tag > > only for easy tasks makes sense Thanks Murat, you ROCK! Have a nice day, Daniel From mgunes at ubuntu.com Fri Dec 21 01:10:59 2007 From: mgunes at ubuntu.com (Murat Gunes) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:10:59 +0200 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <1198112618.12721.71.camel@232> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> <20071218043845.GE10489@murraytwins.com> <1198112618.12721.71.camel@232> Message-ID: <1198199459.19123.22.camel@232> As per the conversation on ubuntu-motu [1], I've re-tagged all "ubuntulove" bugs as "bitesize", and edited /Bugs/Tags accordingly. We now have a total of 88 open "bitesize" bugs. [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-December/002923.html m. From mgunes at ubuntu.com Fri Dec 21 10:15:12 2007 From: mgunes at ubuntu.com (Murat Gunes) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:15:12 +0200 Subject: Tags for small bugs In-Reply-To: <476B6F46.2070605@gmail.com> References: <1198114366.12721.80.camel@232> <1198131965.6908.5.camel@bert> <1198161858.7684.1.camel@seb128-desktop> <1198167287.19123.2.camel@232> <1198167479.11018.1.camel@bert> <1198198340.19123.14.camel@232> <476B6359.5000304@gmail.com> <1198222409.8208.8.camel@232> <476B6F46.2070605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1198232112.12709.27.camel@232> On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 08:46 +0100, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: > As I understand it, 'ubuntulove' could be used when a patch as to be > written for ubuntu only (not for upstream). So I don't really see in > what way 'ubuntulove' and 'bitesize' could be exchanged. I think that > Jérôme who re-add the tag also understands this like I do. We could use > a 'xubuntulove' tag for Xubuntu related patches, and get ride of the > 'ubuntulove' I guess. That may be a good idea. I'm not sure what your understanding of the tag is based on, but there's no indication anywhere that "ubuntulove" was intended for things to be fixed in Ubuntu only; the description in /Bugs/Tags was: "This bug is an 'Ubuntu love' task. Sometimes not hard to figure out, sometimes a small project that could fix the bug. If you want to get involved, you might want to start here." The question is: do the MOTU and Bug Squad teams need a tag for things to be fixed in Ubuntu only, and if positive, should that be "ubuntulove" from now on? m. From fnord at pentabarf.de Fri Dec 21 10:33:58 2007 From: fnord at pentabarf.de (Kjell Braden) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:33:58 +0100 Subject: Tags for small bugs In-Reply-To: <1198232112.12709.27.camel@232> References: <1198114366.12721.80.camel@232> <1198131965.6908.5.camel@bert> <1198161858.7684.1.camel@seb128-desktop> <1198167287.19123.2.camel@232> <1198167479.11018.1.camel@bert> <1198198340.19123.14.camel@232> <476B6359.5000304@gmail.com> <1198222409.8208.8.camel@232> <476B6F46.2070605@gmail.com> <1198232112.12709.27.camel@232> Message-ID: <1198233238.7463.7.camel@hegg> On Fr, 2007-12-21 at 12:15 +0200, Murat Gunes wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 08:46 +0100, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: > > > As I understand it, 'ubuntulove' could be used when a patch as to be > > written for ubuntu only (not for upstream). So I don't really see in > > what way 'ubuntulove' and 'bitesize' could be exchanged. I think that > > Jérôme who re-add the tag also understands this like I do. We could use > > a 'xubuntulove' tag for Xubuntu related patches, and get ride of the > > 'ubuntulove' I guess. > > That may be a good idea. I'm not sure what your understanding of the tag > is based on, but there's no indication anywhere that "ubuntulove" was > intended for things to be fixed in Ubuntu only; the description > in /Bugs/Tags was: > > "This bug is an 'Ubuntu love' task. Sometimes not hard to figure out, > sometimes a small project that could fix the bug. If you want to get > involved, you might want to start here." > > The question is: do the MOTU and Bug Squad teams need a tag for things > to be fixed in Ubuntu only, and if positive, should that be "ubuntulove" > from now on? > > m. > > As I understand it, bugs that *do* need fixing elsewhere should be marked in LP (see [0]), so we wouldn't need a new tag for the opposite. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage - Marking a Bug as Requiring Forwarding Regards, Kjell -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Wed Dec 26 16:53:26 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:53:26 -0800 Subject: Tag consolidation In-Reply-To: <1198112618.12721.71.camel@232> References: <1197946926.12363.31.camel@232> <20071218043845.GE10489@murraytwins.com> <1198112618.12721.71.camel@232> Message-ID: <20071226165326.GD10489@murraytwins.com> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 03:03:38AM +0200, Murat Gunes wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 20:38 -0800, Brian Murray wrote: > > > I created this tag because there isn't mentoring for triaging. > > Mentoring is supposed to be used when someone is willing to help another > > person to write the code to fix the bug. However, I believe I'm the > > only one who tagged bugs as "needs-improvement" and it never really took > > off so it could be removed. > > I think it's quite fine to have a tag with this purpose, but especially > for someone who hasn't read the description (in a while), > "needs-improvement" may look as if it's redundant with "Incomplete", as > if it suggests that the original report itself needs improving. > Especially since most bugs which are tagged with it will be in > "Incomplete" status, the tag itself should emphasize the fact that a > triager is offering mentoring for triaging bug, rather than the fact > that the bug needs improvement, which is what the status most likely > already conveys. > > Thus, I suggest replacing it with an equivalent of > "triage-mentoring-available", which is quite long, but probably still > usable if nobody comes up with a better idea. > > I've also edited the description; let me know if it's fine. Changing the name of the tag sounds reasonable and the description looks good. Thanks again, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: