Simple but worthwhile to fix bugs?

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello,

On 13.09.2012 10:40, Martin Pitt wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I agree. There are different classes of bugs and different
approaches. That's why we try to classify them on the wiki page.

All I tried to say with regard to 'bitesize' that we have a problem
because it's not used very much generally (some teams like Unity do),
and that 'easy' sometimes just means 'easy for somebody who knows the
code' which leaves a bunch of new contributors wondering how to get
started with the bug.

Have a great day,
 Daniel


-- 
Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging
And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to