siretart at ubuntu.com
Wed Jun 11 10:16:28 BST 2008
David Futcher <bobbocanfly at googlemail.com> writes:
> Thanks for the feedback everyone. I have added a link to the example
> on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages. I also wrote
> a stock response for incomplete needs-packaging bugs at
Please not that needs-packaging bugs should never be set to 'incomplete'
to prevent bug expiry. There is really no point in expiring
needs-packaging bugs, at some point someone will or will not package
Thinking a bit more about bug statuses, I don't see why needs-packaging
bugs should ever be 'confirmed'. What semantics should 'confirmed' have?
Either it is already in the archive, then it should be marked
'fixreleased', or it become obsolete, in which case it should be in
If someone actually starts packaging on it, he should set himself as
assignee and mark the bug as 'inprogress'. Bugs 'inprogress' without
assignees are pointless and should go back to 'new' IMO.
If nobody seriously disagrees with this triaging instructions, could the
bugsquad please integrate this instructions properly at the relevant
places of the existing documentation?
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
More information about the Ubuntu-motu