Bug Weekend concluded

Alberto Salvia Novella es20490446e at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 13:54:38 UTC 2014


On 10/03/14 14:51, Walter Garcia-Fontes wrote:
 > Thanks Alberto for organizing this, on the courtesy to me don't
 > worry, if you want you can send it to our Loco team and we can include
 > it in the lottery that we run after each release party among the
 > participants (send it to the team coordinator, you can find addresses
 > at http://loco.ubuntu.com/teams/ubuntu.cat/).

Done.



On 10/03/14 14:51, Walter Garcia-Fontes wrote:
 > 1) In the part of "confirming" bugs, first I think we discussed some
 > months ago that confirming bugs is not the most important part of
 > managing bugs, as there are a lot of confirmed bugs that where
 > confirmed just because two users saw it. The most important part is,
 > in my opinion, checking if the reporter can provide more information,
 > and seeing if it can be triaged. Second I find it almost impossible to
 > deal with bugs if I don't concentrate in specific packages, issues,
 > and so on. Otherwise each bug is so different from the next that I
 > never get on speed on dealing with them.

Yes, confirming bugs is not the most important think; but is the most 
important think that can be done in a Bug Weekend by anyone.

In my opinion, the most important part of managing bugs is deciding 
importances; as this discovers were work is more needed. The next most 
important task is fixing the bug itself, because is what makes every 
piece of effort put in a report to seize constantly.

Secondly, changing between task can be very distracting. That is why the 
provided lists has been deeply studied for being predictable, but not 
repetitive. Moreover, I have formed myself in the latest months 
specially for doing this.

Confirming bugs in the Bug Weekend consist only in following steps in 
bugs' descriptions. And if there aren't any steps, to ask for them.

The concept is like the following: http://youtu.be/hg5RlapdEtE



On 10/03/14 14:51, Walter Garcia-Fontes wrote:
 > 2) On the part of paper cuts, I find that the list was not very
 > useful. None of those bugs were, in my humble opinion, really
 > "bitesize". some of them wouldn't make sense to handle as an Ubuntu
 > package as they where of an upstream nature, and so on.

- Only bugs that can be fixed within a day can be marked as papercuts.
- The Bug Weekend last three days.
- If a bug cannot be fixed within a day, it should be unmarked as a 
papercut.



On 10/03/14 14:51, Walter Garcia-Fontes wrote:
 > But again, thanks for the effort. Last comment is that I think, and
 > this is something that we discussed also lot of times, old bugs
 > shouldn't be ignored, and some effort should be dedicated to clean
 > those old bugs. This is one of the easiest task for new bug
 > triagers, but not a nice thing to do, users who get the first answer
 > after several months of an unattended bug can dedicate you really nice
 > insults, especially if they have moved away from Ubuntu long ago. But
 > better late than never.

While old bugs shall be cared, the purpose of the event was to carry on 
the most important bugs only; so to fix where it was more needed.

I think is normal people to get angry when something is full of defects 
that are not being fixed, but the alternative has been till now to use 
vintage or bad designed malicious bloated proprietary software. This is 
why we're now reinventing bug and quality management.

Regards to you ;)




More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list