Proposal to merge #ubuntu-quality and #ubuntu-bugs

[Brendan Donegan]

On 03/01/13 16:44, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:08:44 +0500
> Omer Akram <om26er at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>> I would say that then the word ubuntu-quality is a bit too broad than its
>> actual purpose, i should have researched more but i did think they were not
>> limited to ISO testing only. As you stated that's not the case then its a
>> bit of misunderstanding about #ubuntu-quality on my end.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Thomas Ward <teward at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Micah Gersten <micahg at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/03/2013 07:14 AM, Omer Akram wrote:
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>
>>>>> Just recently there started a discussion on Ubuntu bug squad list
>>>>> about less people getting involved in bug triage along the discussion
>>>>> there were a few points raised which let me to put the idea of merging
>>>>> #ubuntu-quality and #ubuntu-bugs into one. Ultimately both have the
>>>>> same goal that is talking about quality in Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> At time people testing Ubuntu ISO will raise their bugs in
>>>>> #ubuntu-quality and discussions may take place there. People may or
>>>>> may not be available in both channels but since I believe people do
>>>>> talk mostly about bug reports in those channels (though
>>>>> #ubuntu-quality do have other topics as well) but I think merging them
>>>>> will make a few things easier one will be that there will be mostly a
>>>>> unified place for people to talk about bugs (i know people may talk in
>>>>> #ubuntu+1 or #ubuntu-desktop as well but those channels have their own
>>>>> reasons for exisitance)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here I might not have a lot of point to argue plus I am never great
>>>>> with words but the overall notion is that I believe that it will
>>>>> result in a benefit for Ubuntu due to having a concentrated place to
>>>>> talk bugs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts/Suggestions/Pros/Cons all welcome and appreciated
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I agree with this.  #ubuntu-bugs is specifically for bug
>>>> triage, whereas #ubuntu-quality seems to not have a defined topic.
>>>> Whereas I'm likely to watch #ubuntu-bugs for people who need help with
>>>> triage, I'm not necessarily interested in most of what happens with
>>>> image testing and the issues that arise from it.  This is not to say
>>>> that I don't care, rather that I'm not necessarily going to commit my
>>>> time to such issues.
>>>> You could in theory condense #ubuntu-devel, -desktop, and -release into
>>>> quality as well as the goal is quality, but I don't see that as being
>>>> productive.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Micah
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
>>>> Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com
>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad
>>> I am in full agreement with Micah, what #ubuntu-quality does is ISO
>>> testing and other ISO/image related testing, and not necessarily bug
>>> triage.  I lurk in both #ubuntu-bugs and #ubuntu-quality.  The
>>> channels have separate goals.  And in #ubuntu-bugs, I'm also more than
>>> happy to help out with bug triaging, but I don't want to see ISO
>>> testing bugs and related stuff in #ubuntu-bugs either.
>>>
>>> Since not everyone's responding to both the BugSquad and
>>> ubuntu-quality lists, I've sent this response to both.
>>>
>>> ------
>>> Thomas
>>> Ubuntu BugSquad Member
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
>>> Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad
>>>
> I was against the name change for testing to quality when it happened,
> and I still believe the main results is confusion. quality in most
> places is short for "quality assurance" or "quality control". Neither
> applies to ubuntu testing alone.
In the case of this list, '-quality' definitely expands to 'quality 
assurance' - as most of us know it was only 2 months ago that the list 
was called 'ubuntu-qa' standing for just that :) That being the case, if 
we are not doing 'quality assurance' then we definitely should be. The 
meaning of quality assurance is a set of procedures that *in theory* can 
provide a level of assurance that the product is of good quality. 
Conflating that with all software development practices which could 
impact on quality leads to far too broad a definition. If you like, QA 
tells you how your software is broken and bug triage is part of the 
process of fixing it.
> However, in Ubuntu, ubuntu-quality is
> simply a new name for testing. It is not a name to cover all quality of
> the product.
>
> With this definition in mind, to combine both quality and bug-triage
> would be wrong, since triage and testing do not mean the same things.
> Until Canonical decides once again that Quality means more than testing
> a product, this can not happen.
>