reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible

[C de-Avillez]

On 12-09-2011 14:12, Gwendal Le Bihan wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 09:01 PM, Brian Murray wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:50PM -0400, Scott Moser wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem
>>> by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the
>>> impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should
>>> not report the bug.
>> I've never seen that page before.  We generally direct people to
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs which makes no mention
>> of reproducibility.
>>  
> There's a very similar instruction on that page.
> """
> Launchpad will then ask you for further information. It's important that you specify three things: 
>
> 1.
>     What you expected to happen 
> 2.
>     What actually happened 
> 3.
>     *The minimal series of steps necessary to make it happen, where step 1 is "start the program" 
>     *
>
>

Not anymore. Now it says "If possible, a minimal series ...".
Opening bugs, and triaging, should be done with some common sense.
If there is an instruction that seems (or is!)  incorrect, we should
adjust.

But, for us to eventually correct what is wrong, or capable of
creating confusion, we first need to know there is a (real or
perceived) problem.

BTW, anyone can edit and correct. If someone is unsure, all needed
is to contact us either on this mailing list, or on the #ubuntu-bugs
channel on IRC chat.freenode.net.

Cheers,

..C..

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20110912/04ce9c79/attachment.pgp>