Ubuntu Wiki

Log

UTC

18:00   MootBot Meeting started at 12:04. The chair is heno.
18:00   MootBot Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
18:01   heno    [TOPIC]: Post Hardy.1 SRU verifications - help needed
18:01   MootBot New Topic: : Post Hardy.1 SRU verifications - help needed
18:01   heno    There are quite a few SRUs in need of verification in both main and universe
18:02   heno    http://people.ubuntu.com/~sbeattie/sru_todo.html and http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
18:02   MootBot LINK received:  http://people.ubuntu.com/~sbeattie/sru_todo.html and http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
18:03   sbeattie        and that's after a number have already gone through.
18:03   heno    I actually think we should question whether all these are SRU-worthy
18:03   heno    whether they really meet the serious breakage or regression criteria
18:04   LaserJock       well, it's not really the QA teams decision exactly
18:04   LaserJock       but perhaps we can do some sort analysis to help the SRU teams decide better
18:04   heno    But we have a voice in that
18:04   LaserJock       sure
18:04   DktrKranz       heno, SRU policy changed a bit, even small patches can become a SRU nowadays (as per wiki.u.c/SRU page)
18:04   heno    we should encourage thouse guidelines to be followed
18:05   LaserJock       I personally think QA efforts might be most useful in poking people in these situations
18:05   LaserJock       getting 2 + votes should not be difficult
18:06   heno    right. I'll ask around a bit and report back
18:06   heno    in the meantime it would be great to have help in checking these
18:06   sbeattie        Some of the ones, particularly update-manager, have ppc specific issues (the move from being a supported platform to ports)
18:06   LaserJock       you should have at least the original reporter and sponsor
18:06   persia  I think that a QA voice in SRU would certainly help: both SRU teams seem overburdened by the current processes (from an external perspective)
18:07   heno    I suspect it mostly comes from work that just missed the Hardy.1 deadline
18:07   pedro_  sbeattie: is that bug marked as hw specific ?
18:07   persia  Maybe, but lots of people doing SRU weren't paying attention to Hardy.1
18:08   ScottK  Hardy.1 is not relevant to Universe.
18:08   sbeattie        pedro_: they're not, I was wondering actually whether to.
18:09   ScottK  persia: I agree about overburdening.  I was not able to keep good situational awareness on what I should pay attention to and be effective.  One reason why I quit motu-sru.
18:09   heno    ScottK: true, and many of them pre-date .1
18:09   LaserJock       I'll blog a "QA wants you!" today for the SRU verifications
18:09   sbeattie        pedro_: or to have a specific ppc tag.
18:09   heno    LaserJock: great!
18:09   heno    LaserJock: could you mail the devel list as well?
18:10   LaserJock       heno: will do
18:10   heno    moving on
18:10   DktrKranz       in the past, MOTUs wrote mails on ubuntu-motu about -proposed updates to be tested, I don't think they were useful, but gave a little more attention to the SRU process.
18:10   heno    I'm going to switch topics 2 and 3, which seems to make sense here
18:11   heno    [TOPIC]: Introducing Tom Berger (intellectronica) - Launchpad Bugs contact
18:11   MootBot New Topic: : Introducing Tom Berger (intellectronica) - Launchpad Bugs contact
18:11   intellectronica hi everyone
18:11   heno    intellectronica: are you here?
18:11   ara     hey intellectronica
18:11   tuxmaniac       intellectronica: nice nick :-)
18:11   davmor2 hello :)
18:11   LaserJock       intellectronica: hi
18:11   cr3     intellectronica: hey dude! welcome to our world :)
18:11   heno    Tom accepted my invitation on short notice, thanks!
18:11   sbeattie        intellectronica: welcome!
18:11   intellectronica tuxmaniac: cheers. bonus points if you know where it's from ;)
18:11   pedro_  hey intellectronica welcome ;-)
18:12   heno    He's a developer on the LP bugs team
18:12   intellectronica thanks, everyone, for the warm welcome
18:12   heno    intellectronica: care to expand a bit on that?
18:12   cr3     He's also worked on Blueprints which are really cool!
18:13   intellectronica starting this month, a major part of my role as part of the launchpad team, and in particular as part of the malone team, would be to work with ubuntu and the qa team to make sure that launchpad serves their needs and that questions and requests are easy to communicate
18:14   heno    great, which brings us to:
18:14   persia  Wonderful news indeed!
18:14   intellectronica that means that in many cases i will be working directly on parts of launchpad that concern your work, but more importantly, it means that i am always available for you
18:14   heno    [TOPIC]: LaunchpadBugsFeaturePriorities - call for input.
18:14   MootBot New Topic: : LaunchpadBugsFeaturePriorities - call for input.
18:15   heno    see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/LaunchpadBugsFeaturePriorities
18:15   heno    thanks to everyone who has provided feedback so far
18:15   heno    intellectronica: note the two additional items
18:16   heno    we also separated out the HWDB stuff as there is a dedicated person working on that
18:16   LaserJock       intellectronica: awesome! thanks
18:16   intellectronica heno: noted, though both are quite general, and are indeed on the general list of things we want to achieve in the coming period
18:17   heno    intellectronica: have the general lists been published?
18:17   ScottK  intellectronica: Current performance is a real killer.
18:17   heno    or are there plans to?
18:17   cr3     the hwdb stuff is being worked on with abel and I understand that bjorn is open to discussions on this topic
18:17   intellectronica specifically, regarding speed, please feel free to bug me if you feel that something isn't fast enough. more often than not we wouldn't notice until it actually times out
18:18   ScottK  intellectronica: Generally LP web U/I is so slow it's practically unusable.
18:18   heno    we probably work with bugs differently than most projects, often opening hundreds in a day
18:18   heno    which is why performance is such an issue
18:18   intellectronica ScottK: i guess that's more true for ubuntu, which has very big sets of bugs to work with
18:19   LaserJock       intellectronica: more true for Ubuntu than for what?
18:19   intellectronica ScottK: again, the best way for you to help us remedy this is by pointing out specific cases (even if there are many of them)
18:19   intellectronica LaserJock: more true for ubuntu than for smaller projects
18:19   heno    LaserJock: smaller projects that use LP
18:19   LaserJock       oh, I see
* LaserJock was confused for a sec
18:19   pedro_  intellectronica: there's an always reproducible timeout when you select "Show bugs that are not known to affect upstream" is that known?
18:19   ScottK  intellectronica: I don't know of any cases that aren't. When it takes the database 4 seconds just to find the data for a single page, it's far to slow.
18:20   heno    and for people who look at few bugs, whereas QA people tend to look at lots
18:20   intellectronica pedro_: it is known and a fix is being worked on
18:20   pedro_  intellectronica: great, thanks!
* ScottK decides to go back to $WORK before he gets some momentum on the topic and makes intellectronica feel unwelcom.
18:21   heno    heh
18:21   pedro_  regarding the speed i don't have issues with that
18:21   heno    It may be that APIs+Leonov will help many people here
18:21   pedro_  bugzilla takes more time to load anyways
18:21   pedro_  and lp its way better to show pages with hundreds of bugs on it than bugzilla
18:21   pedro_  but that's just me maybe
18:21   heno    a web app will always be slower than a real one
18:22   pedro_  yes yes yes
18:22   pedro_  but indeed having some more tweaks there would be great
18:22   heno    any other comments on the list other than speed?
18:22   intellectronica actually, i think that in this cases the slowness usually comes from the database. there are efforts to move to a better scalable architecture, but in the meantime, the best we can do is look at specific cases under the microscope and try to optimize them
18:23   davmor2 Work fine for me :)
18:23   ara     I think that the tag policy should be prioritize
18:23   ara     right now it is only pri 13 of the list
18:23   ScottK  Tags are a lost cause.
18:23   cr3     intellectronica: I really like how landscape designed their backend to scale across multiple databases instead of relying on one single database
18:23   ara     but they are extremely helpful when used correctly
18:24   ara     (or sort of)
18:24   LaserJock       broadly, I think it's valuable to try to help people to create/make higher quality bug reports
18:24   heno    ara: ok, noted
18:24   intellectronica cr3: yes, we're learning and adopting a lot from how landscape is doing things
18:25   heno    oh ara: you also have to suggest something that should have its priority decreased ;)
18:25   LaserJock       lol
18:26   heno    are complete activity logs really a #4 when we get the APIs?
18:26   cr3     intellectronica: I want to bear gustavo's children :)
18:26   LaserJock       I think so, personally
18:26   LaserJock       I was tempted to put it #1
18:26   heno    I assume the item here is about the web version
18:26   LaserJock       but it's more for me than for general users
18:26   LaserJock       heno: I think it would apply for both actually
18:27   bdmurray        Having package assignment in the activity log would be useful
18:27   sbeattie        intellectronica: was wondering if there's any support amongst the user base for additional first class elements; for example the elements in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Description
18:27   LaserJock       the API may not give all the activity log either, I'm not sure
18:27   heno    ok
18:27   LaserJock       I've just seen a number of bugs that clearly had a history, but the activity log is blank
18:27   sbeattie        having the activity log be useful as an audit log of operations performed would be very useful.
18:27   intellectronica sbeattie: not that i know, but if there's a need we should discuss it
18:28   LaserJock       and that's very frustrating when trying to put the history together or trying to see who did what
18:28   intellectronica LaserJock: the api currently doesn't expose bug activity log (or bug searching, or bug filing). but it will very soon
18:28   ScottK  I don't understand why not losing history is a "feature".  It's a bug and they should fix it.
18:28   ara     i am back
18:28   ara     sorry
18:28   LaserJock       for instance, for SRU tracking, we'd like to know who approves the SRU or changes the status
18:29   LaserJock       having a good ways of getting complete history is important
18:29   sbeattie        intellectronica: in particular, I'd like to see testcase as a first class element, perhaps as an attachment type, to make automatically pulling them out easier.
18:29   intellectronica as you can see, fixing the activity log is something we worked on speccing and estimating. it's quite expensive in terms of effort, but i personally am very much in favour of prioritizing it high
18:30   intellectronica sbeattie: that's an interesting idea (extending the list of attachment types). maybe that's the way to do that
18:30   heno    ok, there seems to be consensus around that
18:31   intellectronica sbeattie: for other types of metadata attachments would be less aprropriate, though
18:31   heno    in fact, let's go through the top 5 from 'my version' of the list and get views
18:31   cr3     intellectronica: extending it to what types exactly?
18:31   heno    #1 Package-specific reporting guidelines
18:31   intellectronica cr3: test case, for example
18:31   cr3     sbeattie: test cases as bug attachments would be awesome. would you distinguish test steps from test scripts?
18:32   heno    My aim there is to improve new reports being filed
18:32   cr3     heno: do you think reporting test cases would help improve that?
18:32   ara     I think that improving new reports is the key point, the welcome email to new reporters is a great idea
18:33   ara     and easy to implement
18:33   ScottK  I don't understand why that isn't just part of the signup process.
18:33   LaserJock       I don't get the point of th email to new reporters
18:33   heno    cr3: it may be a bit advanced for filers
18:33   LaserJock       Launchpad *should* be self-descriptive
18:33   cr3     hm, so I think that test cases would be an awesome idea but I think it would only be interesting to a minority of people out there, so perhaps concentrating on the welcome email to reach the larger masses would be time better spent
18:33   intellectronica LaserJock: i think it's a good way to get the attention of new bug reporters and introduce them to the process
18:34   LaserJock       intellectronica: I would submit that if that's needed something else is wrong
18:34   heno    The idea is that you would get an email the first time you file on a given package with info on how to better file bugs on it
18:34   heno    and info about what will happen next
18:34   LaserJock       oh good lord, on every package?
18:34   ScottK  heno: Why isn't that in the U/I?
18:34   cr3     heno: oh, a different email on a per package basis!? interesting...
18:35   intellectronica i'm not sure doing this for every package makes sense. i would do this for ubuntu globally
18:35   heno    ScottK: because people don't read web pages ;)
18:35   ara     and maybe for some packages like firefox
18:35   LaserJock       people don't read email either
18:35   ScottK  heno: They aren't going to read the mail either
18:35   cr3     intellectronica: I think heno would have a few key packages in mind
18:35   heno    that could be
18:35   persia  I think a per-package thing is more interesting in the UI.  A per-project thing might be interesting in email.
18:35   persia  I certainly don't want to get a new email for every bug I file (I very rarely file two bugs in the same package)
18:36   intellectronica cr3: right, as long as we restrain ourselves so that we don't become abusive to our users
18:36   cr3     persia: you would only get an email the first time you report a bug against a specific package
18:36   LaserJock       I could see giving an email with useful wiki pages (we have quite useful documentation in the BugSquad) on first filing
18:36   heno    so if we keep guided filing at #1 we should demote the email one which is similar?
18:36   persia  cr3: Which for me, is likely to be every bug I file.
18:36   persia  I much prefer guided bug filing as a solution to that problem.
18:36   LaserJock       persia: yeah, that would be big-time spam
18:37   ScottK  Personally I think sending mail to tell me something you could have put on the web page I was at when I didn't ask for the mail borders on abusive.
18:37   heno    OK, I'll demote that as I seem to be the only supporter of it :)
18:37   heno    #2 Duplicate-detection inside launchpad
18:37   heno    that should make triage easier
18:38   LaserJock       I like it, but think other things should be higher than it
18:38   heno    this is basically using the new-bug-filing dupe-finder on exisiting bugs
18:38   LaserJock       it sort of depends on how well the dup detection works
18:39   ara     LaserJock:  it works pretty well
18:39   LaserJock       well
18:39   heno    what do triagers think?
18:39   sbeattie        One of the use cases which makes ubuntu a different user of launchpad than most projects hosted on it, is that it is an aggregation of packages, and subgroups of those packages could/would be useful (weather report, per package bug filing info)
18:39   ara     I use a fake new report sometimes to look after dups
18:39   ScottK  I guess I don't understand why if the dupe finder could find it, it isn't already found.
18:39   pedro_  could it be also look into the summary and not only in the title? (which is what's currently the dup-finder is doing)
18:39   LaserJock       one of the things I'm concerned about with it what is done once a dup is detected?
18:40   LaserJock       if we have to go back and retriage dups then I'm not sure how much we save
18:40   intellectronica ScottK: the only case is where the bug reporter ignored it
18:40   persia  Perhaps if the UI offered a clickable list of possible dupes when selecting a duplicate, rather than just asking for entry?
18:40   heno    ScottK: because the bug you are looking for may have been filed afterwards, it's description changed, etc
18:40   persia  That might be helpful without being disruptive.
18:40   LaserJock       so how would this be implemented?
18:41   ScottK  intellectronica: In that case I think it's actively harmful.
18:41   LaserJock       would it be flagged somehow as "possible dup"?
18:41   heno    or the filer may not have wanted to dupe it for some reason
18:41   intellectronica LaserJock: yes, that's the idea. to make it easier to search for 'maybe dupes'
18:41   LaserJock       persia: ohhhh, I l ike that
18:41   ScottK  And I'd prefer not to have some automagic over-ride what the reporter decided.
18:41   pedro_  persia: that would be good, it's what the GNOME Bugzilla does
18:42   heno    it's not an automatic thing, just a search feature
18:42   LaserJock       ok, that's cool
18:42   LaserJock       I like persia's idea of it
18:43   heno    me too
18:43   LaserJock       though I think it's more of a "handy for us" than a "helps make reports higher quality" which I sort of perfer in generall
18:43   heno    indeed
18:43   ScottK  As a search feature, I think it might be useful, but not high priority.
18:43   heno    ok, that can be lowered a bit too it seems
18:44   heno    3 and 4 we covered
18:44   sbeattie        ScottK: we were thinking/hoping that it would be relatively easy to implement, given that the dupe detection capability alreayd exists.
18:44   heno    #5 Bugtask forwarding relationships
18:44   LaserJock       hmm, I didn't quite get that one
18:44   LaserJock       intellectronica: can you explain that one more?
18:44   ScottK  What were 3 and 4?
18:45   sbeattie        3: email to new reporters 4: full activity log
18:45   heno    #3 Email first-time bug-reporters  #4 activity log
18:45   ScottK  OK.
18:45   persia  ScottK: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/LaunchpadBugsFeaturePriorities has the order
18:45   intellectronica LaserJock: basically, it's a way to refine the way bug tasks are raised
18:46   intellectronica LaserJock: the suggestion is to have 'phantom' bug tasks on some bugs, which you can confirm or deny
18:46   heno    IMO it's important to be able to say 'this bug does not need upstreaming'
18:46   LaserJock       hmm, that sounds initially easy to abuse
18:46   ScottK  What's the use case for this?
18:47   heno    or 'for this one we don't know yet'
18:47   LaserJock       I see
18:47   heno    For people who specialise in working with upstream, forwarding issues
18:47   LaserJock       so we're trying to figure out how to sort packages into "Ubuntu specific", "May affect upstream", and "Affects Upstream" ?
18:48   heno    yes
18:48   intellectronica LaserJock: exactly.
18:48   pedro_  i like that idea ;-)
18:48   LaserJock       hmm
18:48   ScottK  I think being able to remove ones that shouldn't be there is far more important.
18:48   persia  Is this just a UI change for "Also Affects..." ?
18:48   LaserJock       well I would initially say that that could be done via tags
18:48   intellectronica ScottK: with this feature implemented, you'll be able to remove them before they are even created! :)
18:48   LaserJock       the number of ubuntu-specific bugs is generally quite low
18:48   LaserJock       so if you were to tag those
18:49   LaserJock       and have negative tag searches
18:49   heno    right, it shpuld be possible to change it between any of those 3 states
18:49   LaserJock       you'd have "ubuntu specific" and "non-ubuntu specific"
18:49   persia  Having a list of Ubuntu-specific bugs would likely be interesting to some subset of developers
18:49   ScottK  LaserJock: It's not so easy.  Just because it's not a packaging bug, doens't mean I won't patch it if I can.
18:49   ScottK  We already have a tag for 'packaging' bugs.
18:49   LaserJock       ScottK: why is it not that easy
18:50   intellectronica LaserJock: sure, but you won't have to connection to upstream proejcts in cases where an upstream task is due
18:50   LaserJock       we're just talking about tagging here
18:50   heno    it could also be a code bug we introduced
18:50   LaserJock       I never said anything about what kind of bug it is
18:50   persia  heno: Those tend to fall under "packaging" as well, as in "some patch oughtn't be applied"
18:50   LaserJock       I just said we can tag ubuntu vs. non-ubuntu bugs
18:50   intellectronica for many packages we know what the relevant upstream project is, so it would be nice to be able to use that relation effectively
18:51   LaserJock       intellectronica: I don't get how this spec would improve that?
18:51   persia  That reminds me, I don't see "Inheriting upstream links between releases" on the list.  Is that an option?
18:51   LaserJock       does it make it easier to file a bug upstream?
18:52   ScottK  Personally, I'd like clearer disambiguation between upstream and Ubuntu tasks when upstream uses LP.
18:52   ScottK  I find the an upstream that uses LP makes life much more confusing for me.
18:52   intellectronica LaserJock: when a bug is filed on an ubuntu package, you will get a suggestion for where it should be reported upstream, and you'll be able to decided whether to file it, or indicate that it's ubuntu-specific
18:52   heno    it makes it easier to triage the bugs that _may need filing upstream_
18:52   persia  Or even when someone randomly registered the upstream project in LP and didn't set a foreign bug tracker.
18:52   intellectronica ScottK: how so?
18:52   LaserJock       intellectronica: oh, and how would that look in the UI?
18:52   heno    because you start with a big unknown pile and put bugs in two other piles
18:53   ScottK  First, is upstream is external, I just get status changes.  If they use LP, I get every single effing piece of bugmail and no way to turn it off.
18:53   ScottK  And the difference between that and Ubuntu related comments is very small.
18:53   intellectronica LaserJock: using 'phantom tasks'. lines in the bug task table that are clearly indicative of their requiring confirmation. also in search
18:53   heno    where as now it's 'upstream' and 'ubuntu spec + don't know'
18:53   ScottK  Also, I think most triager's don' t know enough to know what should go upstream.
18:53   LaserJock       intellectronica: we've had a lot of people who abuse the upstream stuff already, who can confirm these?
18:54   ScottK  Even more specifically what should go to Debian and what should go to the eventual upstream.
18:54   intellectronica LaserJock: the same people who can set Triaged (though of course we can discuss that when implementing)
18:54   ScottK  Making this to easy is a recipe for disaster.
18:54   persia  Well, making this easy may impose a large training burden.
18:55   ScottK  No.
18:55   ScottK  Making it easy invites abuse.
18:55   ScottK  If people were sufficiently trained, they could handle it anyway.
18:55   intellectronica ScottK: well, i believe that real access control is much better than obscurity. if too easy means that you get lots of junk it means that we didn't get the permissions right
18:55   LaserJock       so is this just making "Also affects project/distribution" easier to use by assuming we want the tasks and letting us confirm or not?
18:56   intellectronica LaserJock: sort of. it also helps marking bugs as ubuntu-specific
18:56   ScottK  Fundamentally I think this entire U/I piece is pretty broken anyway.
18:56   LaserJock       intellectronica: how so?
18:56   intellectronica LaserJock: if you mark a bug as not affecting upstream, launchpad will remember it
18:56   persia  intellectronica: There aren't so many of those: it's typically only for ubuntu-local packages or when we broke something.  I wouldn't like to assume that's the general case.
18:57   LaserJock       basically I think the assumption is that *everything* is assumed to be Ubuntu-specific until somebody explicitly finds that it's not
18:57   intellectronica but hey, it could be that the best thing to do is de-prioritize this feature. there are definitely many other features we could consider instead
18:57   LaserJock       ideally we indicate that by filing the bug upstream and opening a task for it
18:57   persia  (Mind you, I think "Also Affects..." could use work, I just don't want to optimise for the "Ubuntu-only" case, as I think it's rare)
18:58   heno    It's seems we need more details on the implementation before taking a clear view on it
18:58   LaserJock       yeah, I'm still not sure what it's going to do
18:58   heno    ok, any other items on the list we should cover?
18:58   ScottK  I'd love a feature where I don't have to go through the useful project registration stuff to link a bug.
18:58   heno    higher or lower priority
18:58   intellectronica heno: ok. shall we make it an action for me to upload a spec so that we have something more concrete to discuss?
18:58   ScottK  usful/useless
18:59   heno    intellectronica: yes please
18:59   intellectronica cool
18:59   LaserJock       in general I think tags are a pain point
18:59   heno    ScottK: get jcastro to do it for you ;)
18:59   ScottK  heno: It's a useless barrier
19:00   ScottK  I'd like to discuss the qualifying bug reporters one.
19:00   ScottK  I think it should be removed.
19:00   heno    LaserJock: and is official tags the right answer
19:00   ScottK  It's very un-Ubuntu to tell people the don't know enough to report bugs.
19:00   LaserJock       I think it's also actively harmful to register projects in Launchpad just for bug tracking
19:00   LaserJock       heno: part of it
19:00   ScottK  Agreed.
19:00   LaserJock       we've also discussed better viewing of tags
19:00   ScottK  If I put my upstream hat on for a moment, I find them very troublesome
19:01   LaserJock       i.e. sorting by number of bugs tagged rather than alphabetical
19:01   LaserJock       and having a threshold number
19:01   heno    right qualifying bug reporters will clearly be controvertial
19:01   ScottK  They show up in google searches and look like the upstream home when they aren't.
19:01   bdmurray        LaserJock: by the way there is a greasemonkey script for that now
19:01   LaserJock       bdmurray: cool, we just need to get that into LP proper :-)
19:02   persia  bdmurray: Sure, but isn't this the opportunity to not need that anymore ? :)
19:02   heno    I don't feel strongly about it, but assumed it would raise the quality of bugs on average, though at a cost
19:02   bdmurray        persia: that's why I qualified it with by the way
19:02   LaserJock       henkjan: what would?
19:02   LaserJock       bah
19:02   persia  Oh.  I thought you were just passing FYI.  Sorry for confusion.
19:02   LaserJock       heno: ^^
19:03   heno    'qualifying bug reporters'
19:03   LaserJock       oh right
19:03   LaserJock       yeah, I think that's a terrible idea
19:03   LaserJock       and really hope it never sees the light of day ;-)
19:03   heno    ScottK wants it removed, as does LaserJock
19:03   heno    any other views?
19:03   LaserJock       I can't imagine what upstream's would think
19:04   LaserJock       "I can't file bugs on my own software???"
19:04   pedro_  I'm with ScottK on this too, it's going to be very controversial for upstream people
19:04   heno    ok, I'll set that to '-' then
19:04   pedro_  thanks
19:04   LaserJock       I mean, it's an interesting idea
19:04   heno    anything else on the list?
19:05   ScottK  I'd also think U/I for submitting to upstream is not a good idea.
19:05   LaserJock       but I don't think there's any real metric that will work to figure out what "qualified" is
19:05   persia  Perhaps the redirection can be part of the guided-bug-filing process, so it is noted but not enforced.
19:05   heno    it's meant to give you a template basically hat you can paste upstream, not fully automatic
19:05   JonPackard      I like the idea of an e-mail after the first time a user reports a bug with Ubuntu, but I think we should take it a step further. Would it be possible to add some sort of HELP button to the "Report a bug" page? Perhaps something like https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs would be very helpful to first time bug reporters.
19:06   ScottK  JonPackard: Link on a web page or "Click here if you want us to mail you more information", but not automatic.
19:06   persia  I'd be a fan of search filtering.  Sometimes someone asks me about classes of bugs that keep popping up in their searches, and I have to read a bit to understand how to suggest they search differently to find what they seek.
19:06   heno    JonPackard: that could be worked into 'guided filing'
19:07   ScottK  heno: I guess I have a hard time envisioning a template that would work for more than one upstream.
19:07   heno    ScottK: it needs to be tailored for each, indeed
19:07   LaserJock       I put "Capture Distro Series When Filing Bugs" and "Better package name UI guidance" on my list
19:08   LaserJock       I think it would be good to help reporters get good information the first time
19:08   LaserJock       how often do we see triagers asking "what version of Ubuntu and package are you using?"
19:08   ScottK  heno: Seems to me like a huge amount of work for little to no payoff (generally the same people that are qualified to upstream bugs know how to use the upstream bug tracker)
19:08   heno    persia: you want "Explicit Search Filtering" raised a bit?
19:08   ScottK  LaserJock: Agreed.
19:08   LaserJock       and then we have quite a few reports with no package associated that I think we can get rid of
19:09   heno    we don't do enough upstreaming today though
19:09   heno    many bugs are just lingering with us
19:09   persia  heno: I don't help in #ubuntu-bugs as much as I'd like, but it's certainly something that would make helping some of the triagers easier for me.
19:09   heno    persia: ok, thanks
19:09   persia  On the other hand, it doesn't affect me personally, and I'm happy that it got a number if everyone else feels it's not so important.
19:10   ScottK  heno: I think not sending everything upstream is better than sending them lots of junk that leads to Ubuntu bugs getting ignored.
19:10   LaserJock       heno: I believe the lack of upstreaming is mostly a cultural/social issue
19:10   heno    LaserJock: right, there should be room for those now that we have demoted a few
19:11   heno    btw, LaserJock's prioritised list was helpful - it'd be great if a few more people did that
19:11   LaserJock       the problem is that upstreaming is almost by definition a pretty hard thing to do
19:11   heno    that way I can try to reconcile the different lists
19:12   heno    it is, but we should try to make it easier where we can
19:12   LaserJock       agreed
19:12   heno    let's try to wrap up the meeting
19:12   heno    keep using the mailing list
19:12   heno    it's all good stuff!
19:13   LaserJock       yes, productive meeting for sure
19:13   heno    any other business?
19:13   LaserJock       poor intellectronica  ;-)
19:13   heno    (quickly)
19:13   heno    ok, thanks all!
19:13   cr3     err
19:13   heno    #endmeeting
19:13   MootBot Meeting finished at 13:17.