Why not triaging confirmed bugs instead of new ones?

[Omer Akram]

Hi!


On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella <
es20490446e at gmail.com> wrote:

> Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
>
>> Considering that a bug gets "confirmed" as soon as somebody besides the
>> bug reporter states that it affects him/her, I think that confirmed bugs
>> should always be included when looking for untouched bugs.
>>
>
> But isn't confirming bugs a task rather related with the tester role than
> with the triager one?
>
> Why shall bug triagers be looking at new bugs being most of them not
> triageable without getting confirmation first, and specially having in
> place a role specially intended for confirming?
>
> Moreover, what is the point of confirming bug reports one by one?
>

/snip

>
> If the bug is somehow relevant, wouldn't it be happening to at least two
> people in the world while testing the software? Then why not spending that
> time rather in finding bugs than in reading tons of invalid reports?
>

That's a bold assessment to make. One thing we need to know is that not
everyone is willing to report each and every bug they see. So you might see
a bug with 'new' status but you can't think of it as invalid just because
its not confirmed by someone. In my experience many people only report bugs
which bother them the most or if they are in a mood of reporting bugs ;-)


>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-quality mailing list
> Ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>