Proposed changes to the documentation for the empty bug watch policy discussed during the last meeting

[Bruno Girin]

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 14:13 -0600, Marc Randolph wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Sense Hofstede <qense at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Fixed the spelling mistake! I also agree with your suggestion in the
> > last point and added it to the proposed version of the wiki page. I've
> > attached a freshly generated .diff file with these changes. Thank you!
> >
> > However, if I'm correct, the 'Triaged' status is ought to used when
> > _all_ triaging is done. This of course includes forwarding upstream.
> > Only then should a bug be marked as 'Triaged'.
> > If that's the policy then the charts should be adapted instead. Can
> > anyone provide a definitive answer on this one?

Makes sense. In this case, we need to update the diagrams.

> 
> Howdy Sense,
> 
> A bit more feedback:
> 
> first diff section:
> 
> * I would personally use the word "inform" rather than "notice"
> (referencing <<This doesn't actually notice the upstream
> developers>>), but perhaps there was a reason you used "notice"?  Is
> it more clear to those speaking English as a second language?

What about "notify"?

> * Search is misspelled as Cearch
> 
> 
> third diff section:
> 
> * Even after reading <<You have, or someone else has, '''checked''' if
> the bug is still present in the latest version, since Ubuntu usually
> includes older releases of applications>>,  I suspect that someone
> relatively new triagers will have several opportunities for confusion
> regarding what "latest version" means.  I don't know the best way to
> word it, but perhaps something a bit more detailed and closer to <<You
> have, or someone else has, 'checked' if the bug is still present in
> the latest version. This can include trying an unreleased PPA if
> available, or compiling upstream source directly. >>  Having said it
> like that, this step can appear to be quite onerous for _many_
> triagers.  Would it make them shy away?

I agree, what do we mean by "latest version"? Is it the latest version
of the package as available in the version of Ubuntu that the reporter
has? Is it the latest version available in the current development
version of Ubuntu? Or the very latest version compiled from source of
the package?

And yes, worded like that it makes this step very onerous, especially if
it's also meant for triagers who don't feel comfortable enough with the
upstream tracker or don't have the time to do the full upstream
reporting and just want to highlight it: adding an empty bug watch
should be quick and easy.

On the other hand, doing the actual upstream forwarding can be made more
complex because the triager dong the forwarding is probably experienced
with the package and knows what to do.

So what about splitting that section in two along the following lines?
      * if you think the bug should be forwarded upstream but you are
        not sure how to do this or you don't have the time, just create
        an empty bug watch to notify a more experienced triager that it
        needs forwarding
      * if you are comfortable with the upstream tracker and the bug
        needs forwarding upstream, you can do it yourself

Bruno