<div dir="auto">Something I'm missing on those tutorials is the recommendation for search for updates before reporting the bug, just in case the problem is already fixed.<div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto">Seem important for me, but I like to hear a second opinion about it.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On May 29, 2017 10:50 PM, "C de-Avillez" <<a href="mailto:hggdh2@ubuntu.com">hggdh2@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:54:45 +0200 Alberto Salvia Novella <<a href="mailto:es20490446e@gmail.com">es20490446e@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > About: > (<a href="https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs</a>) > (<a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/es20490446e/Reporting%20bugs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/es20490446e/Reporting%20bugs</a>) OK, let's get thru the proposed page. I will be copying text from the proposed Reporting Bugs so that I can comment. The version I am using is #32, timestamped 2017-05-27 22:38:52. Text copied will have the usual "> " we see on replies (well, at least *I* see on my text emails. I do not know what/how it is shown on HTML/richText). * 1. Etiquette > If you care about an Ubuntu release not having bugs, test the daily > image five months before launch. So developers have time to fix it. Why 5 months before? Our release cycle is *still* 6 months. If we test an image 5 months before release, we will be testing pre-alpha code. * how are people -- non-technical people -- going to test it? Something that is, 5 months before release, pre-alpha? * should they only test the code as is 5 months before release? > If writing more doesn't make a tangible difference, write less. We need context. If fact, the sentence above is a good example of why writing *less* does not always help. > If you have any doubt, you can ask any time. I absolutely agree. 100%. All for it. Always. But... My issue here is the word "ask", above, is a link to mailing to the ubuntu-quality ML. Nothing else. But the ubuntu-quality mailing list is NOT the only resource available for people in doubt. There are also: * IRC * The Ubuntu fora (<a href="https://ubuntuforums.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ubuntuforums.org</a>) * AskUbuntu (<a href="https://askubuntu.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://askubuntu.com/</a>) * the answers section on Launchpad (<a href="https://answers.launchpad.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://answers.launchpad.net/</a>) * the ubuntu-users mailing list * the Ubuntu documentation (<a href="https://help.ubuntu.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://help.ubuntu.com/</a>) * and MANY other mailing lists. To limit to ONE source for answers really does not help. At all. And it is not even the most important source for bugs/issues/support. 2. Not Bugs > Reporting misspells But a misspell *is* a bug. Why wouldn't a mispell be reported? 3. Reporting windowed aplications > In the Terminal application enter: > > ubuntu-bug -w Ah, OK. And then this ubuntu-bug thingie will magically find the bug I want to report, right? Oh, it will not? what should I do then? 4. Reporting non windowed applications > 1. Using the Synaptic application and the list of common packages, > determine which software package is the most likely to be affected. But synaptic is no longer installed by default. How is a casual user going to *know* that, and how would this casual user get synaptic installed? Are there other options? What are they? 5. Reporting unusable systems Now we have, as far as I am concerned, a real issue. As I have already stated, we do not simply need more bugs, we need *good*, *workable*, bugs. Our experience with free bug entry was horrible. many of the bugs entered were unworkable. This was why the free bug entry was removed from view. -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- This is one reason of why reporting bugs is so complicated. It is not *easy* to report a bug. Keep in mind that a bug report is a *technical* report of a software defect. If one does not know what a bug is (hint: a bug is a defect in a program/package), why should one be able to enter *anything* as a bug? If one does not know if the bad experience just had is, or is not, a bug, then one would be better served by going to the community support areas I pointed above. If necessary, after being helped by somebody else in the community -- and if determined to be a bug -- then a bug may be opened. But know, at least, we have a good chance of knowing the correct package name, and other important details to be reported. Cheers, ..C.. -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality</a> </blockquote></div></div>