Simple but worthwhile to fix bugs?

[Martin Pitt]

Daniel Holbach [2012-09-11 11:25 +0200]:
> Also with many projects using 'bitesize' for their bugs we now have
> tasks which might be 'bitesize' in the context of a particular package
> (ie if you know a bit about the code base already), but in general they
> might be hard for somebody who's new to everything.
> 
> We should probably refer to the bitesize bugs in the wiki page, but have
> other tasks as well, which can be solved by the step-1-to-step-10 approach.

That seems to assume that there are significant classes of bugs which
affect all packages alike? It seems to me that this reduces the
opportunities pretty much to things like spelling errors or
translation updates, and these are already covered. For actual wrong
behaviour (what most bug reports are about), you necessarily have to
get some package specific knowledge?

The step 1 to 10 should certainly encompass how to get the source,
point to patch system docs, forwarding patch to upstream, put it into
the sponsoring queue etc, but I don't see how we can create steps to
fix actual bugs without knowing what package we are talking about?

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)