Bugs without a package

Steve Beattie sbeattie at ubuntu.com
Thu Sep 11 06:09:12 UTC 2008

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:02:39PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 03:40:35PM -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Brian Murray <brian at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > Recently there has been some fantastic progress made with the pile of
> > > bugs without a package, however the numbers are starting to creep back
> > > up.  While working with the xorg.conf python-launchpad-bugs validation
> > > script it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see how many
> > > bugs without a package have an attachment - about 430.  It seems to me
> > > that this might be another way to slice up the large pile.  I'm curious
> > > about the best way of identifying these no package bugs with
> > > attachments.
> > >
> > > 1) Setup another bug report identifying bug numbers and their
> > > attachments.
> > >
> > > 2) Tag all the bugs as 'has-attachment' or so.
> > >
> > > I prefer 2 since this will then be searchable in Launchpad via the
> > > 'has-attachment' tag, which actually it should just be possible to
> > > search for bugs with attachments.
> > >
> > > Does anybody have any thoughts about the best way to move forward?
> > 
> > This may be a stupid question, but if you're gonna spend the time to
> > tag them, why not go ahead and figure out a package to assign the bug
> > to and get them off the list permanently?
> I really wasn't going to spend the time to tag them, my friend
> python-launchpad-bugs was.

Will Gilligan, err, your little buddy p-lp-b be tagging *all* bugs with
attachments or merely the ones without a package? Because if it's the
former, that's going to generate just a wee bit of email. If it's the
latter, it's only useful in your specific usage, and not generally useful,
as e.g. querying for kernel bugs with the 'has-attachment' tag will not
guarantee that you get all of them, given that some will be properly
associated to the linux package when initially submitted and thus not
subject to your script.

Will you be removing the tag when a bug has all its attachments deleted
as well as (if only tagging bugs with no packages) if it gets associated
to a package?

Frankly, I'd rather see the attachment description(s) show up in addition
to the hint statements in one single generated report. (Can it be done
through the hinting/formatting mechanisms as they exist now?)

It would be useful if launchpad could provide the ability to search
directly for bugs with attachments, especially given that it already
lets one search for a subtype of attachments, patches.

Steve Beattie
<sbeattie at ubuntu.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/attachments/20080910/581086c1/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Ubuntu-qa mailing list