Some points on the Wiki for Bug(squad|control)

Brendan Donegan brendan.donegan at
Wed Jan 22 15:15:54 UTC 2014

On 22/01/14 14:51, C de-Avillez wrote:
> Hello folks
> TL;DR -- do not assign bugs to other people.n

Looks like a poor interpretation of the wiki. If we say 'in *general* 
NEVER assign a but to somebody else' that actually means that there may 
be specific cases where it can be done, such as the entry on askubuntu 
which discusses a *very* specific case where assigning to a user is 
allowed - which should be interpreted as 'in this specific case, the 
user 'Nick Tait' gives you his implicit permission to assign papercut 
bugs to him' - not 'oh hey, in general you can just assign bugs to 
whoever you want'. Anyway having a process where a bug is assigned to a 
named user is dubious so that should be changed.

> I noticed, a few days ago, some edits on the Bugs/* namespace. In
> general, good work, and a good consolidation on the multiple (and
> almost, but not completely identical) pages.
> There was, though, a edit that I do not agree with. So, to start, let's
> posit two principles (and I am talking about triaging here):
> * 1. The documentation about how to deal with bugs in Ubuntu is
>    contained (or pointed to from) in the Wiki, under the Bugs namespace;
> * 2. NOWHERE else is a good place.
> Simple principles. The whole idea, after all, is to allow anyone,
> either starting to help or trying to remember things, a *single* place
> to go to find information.
> So, back to the issue at hand. This edit dealt with Bug
> status and, on reading it, I noticed that a restriction we had in
> place for quite a long time was not there anymore.
> This restriction goes as follows: "in general, NEVER assign a bug to
> somebody else."
> So I edited the page, and added it back [1].
> I was surprised to find, later, a re-edit of the page with this
> restriction taken out again [2], with a a comment "As seen it
> <>, this is not true in all cases."
> That is not the issue. The issue is one should NOT assign bugs to other
> people. There are some reasons for this:
>   * I see no problem with assigning bugs to teams (or projects): teams
>     (and projects) usually survive changes. People join, and leave,
>     teams and projects -- their interests changes --, but the teams (and
>     projects) tend to stay.
>   * this has been heavily abused in the past; we were all tired of
>     finding ourselves with a new bug assigned to us *even* when it was
>     not our area/interest/responsibility.
>   * in the same vein, I do not need other people to decide what I have
>     to do *without* contacting me first to see if I agree. This is
>     really, really, bad manners.
> The restriction was there for a reason. It should be back there (but I
> am not going to re-edit the page, and start a silly "you are wrong; no
> YOU are wrong" wiki edit battle).
> And on the comment ("As seen it <>, this is not true
> in all cases."): It does not matter. We may see a series of rules on How
> To Assign A Bug To Other People in thousands of pages in the web.
> But, for triaging, the ONLY VALID PLACE is under the Bugs/* namespace,
> at
> This also show WHY having a single point for triaging (and, in general,
> for documentation) is a better option. I , personally, cannot understand
> why would anyone have thought to go to to ask how to
> triage a bug. And, worse, why would anyone answer there giving a
> *different* process, and NOT update the wiki?
> And this brings another point: these pages provide GENERAL guidance. I
> certainly do not want to see them grow without limit so that evey
> single minuscule aspect of triaging can be documented. But I can
> accept redirection to more specific pages (as long as we do not grow
> *these* pages without bounds).
> This is it. It is partially a rant, partially a -- for me -- reasonable
> request.
> Cheers,
> ..C..
> [1]
> [2]

More information about the Ubuntu-quality mailing list