Bugs without a package

[Brian Murray]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:13:05PM -0400, Mike Rooney wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:40 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.
> 
> Are you referring to only New bugs? I guess what I am specifically
> wondering is how are we figuring bugs for which "ubuntu" is actually
> correct into this mix, such as needs-packaging, and probably a few
> other cases. We don't want to consider all packageless bugs bad if
> they aren't all...well...bad. At least for statistical purposes we
> don't want the bad (needs work) and not bad (are fine) bugs lumped
> together I imagine.

There are very few bug reports that should not have a package the only
ones I can think of are needs-packaging ones and bug number 1.  So, no
I'm not only referring to New bug reports.
 
> When you speak of the 430 bugs are you implicitly removing bugs with
> needs-packaging and anything else in a similar situation? If I am just
> missing something please feel free to enlighten me :)

I had to double check but yes - I am not including 'needs-packaging' bug
reports.
 
-- 
Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/attachments/20080911/e49219e9/attachment.pgp>