[00:00] <phillw> ahh, incomplete.. not invalid... I'll await someone to tell me I'm correct. I've not closed a bug down before :)
[00:14] <hggdh> phillw: there are some ways. One of them -- given that you stated "...there has been many bugs fixed. I've not seen it repeated.": close as fix released, and add a comment that it has not been reproduced on 1.1
[00:14] <phillw> hggdh: okies boss :)
[00:15] <hggdh> balloons: I can understand the OP's frustration. But -- as I have said before -- a bug is a technical report. I actually think that only maintainers/developers/bugcontrollers should be allowed to manually enter a bug.
[00:16] <hggdh> instead, we should provide a better interface, perhaps graphical, to ubuntu-bugs. It might allow for the selection of a package, or a program, and would *always* enter the bare minimum data we need.
[00:18] <hggdh> we might also start forcing any new package to require an apport-hook... but I think I would be shot on sight for this proposal...
[00:21] <phillw> hggdh: can you also mark the external bug link as closed / fix released.  http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3231892&group_id=156956&atid=801864
[00:24] <hggdh> phillw: done
[00:24] <phillw> hggdh: I *thought* pcmanfm now had apport hooks? (I do lose track as to how many of the the lxde applications have got apport built in)... I can check
[00:25] <phillw> hggdh: thanks, I found it in limbo when I was looking up the release versions that pcmanfm had on the various lubuntu releases :)
[00:29] <hggdh> phillw: heh, I was talking generically, on the discussion that balloons started (ubuntu-bug & the casual user)
[00:38] <phillw> hggdh: bugs are always a pain... As you know, I've been updating https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/Activities and have the bug sub-section on there. If any of the bug team want to edit it, add links etc... I'd be delighted :) I've linked SRU to colin's page, as it does get somewhat more involved when someone wants to head down that route of testing. Colin was kind enough to hold the bug session on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/Activities/Classroom
[00:39] <phillw> earlier this cycle.... Damn, he's good :D
[00:52] <phillw> oops, just added the table of contents to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Bugs surprised no one gave me a dig in the rubs for my omission :)
[20:31] <balloons> hggdh, looking at the page, it's a novel, but to cut it back would do it injustice. I guess I would like to see a streamlined page saying use ubuntu-bug and file your bug
[20:32] <balloons> I think improvements in how that process works to get it up to enough "snuff' to be useful would then be warranted. A full on technical bug report is not acheivable, nor does it make sense for most users. Heck, even someone like yourself if your filing against something you dont know anything about
[20:33] <balloons> I'm sure you all have discussed this in the past.. but does a vUDS session make sense here?
[21:02] <hggdh> balloons: I think there is room for both -- rewriting the page, and improving ubuntu-bug
[21:03] <hggdh> balloons: it is probable that a vUDS would help -- we really need to decide how to deal with ad-hoc, casual, users opening bugs
[21:04] <hggdh> I really do not want to spend time figuring out (1) what a bug is about; (2) what are we missing in data; (3) is this a support request after all?
[21:18] <hggdh> when we moved to inhibit usage of direct bug opening from LP it was because of the time lost with missing data from bugs; the idea was that ubuntu-bug+apport would take care of that;
[21:21] <hggdh> we left open a link on LP; perhaps just bad luck, but most of the bugs I have seen directly opened via LP were missing data
[21:22] <hggdh> so, to really get this going, we need to improve ubuntu-bug/apport so that the user (casual or technical, but unfamiliar with Ubuntu) is not thrown out because a parameter was not passed
[21:23] <hggdh> (obviously, this will not help a completely ignorant user, or one that really is not willing to learn)