Bugs without a package

Brian Murray brian at ubuntu.com
Thu Sep 11 23:25:45 UTC 2008


On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Steve Beattie wrote:
> 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.

My intent was only to process the bugs without a package.  I see your
point regarding the utility of having the tag once the bug has been
assigned a package, so a report seems like the best way to go.

> 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?

Not with the new plan. ;-)
 
> 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.

I'll submit a bug about that.
 
-- 
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/20080911/95a6f069/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Ubuntu-qa mailing list