2009-06-24 - Fedora QA meeting Recap

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:05 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/25/2009 05:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:37 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> >    
> >> I think asking for some competence/responsibility from packagers is not
> >> to much! After all is exposing this to thousand, hundreds of thousand
> >> millions of users and he needs to be competent enough to handle the
> >> reports that flow in bugzilla against the component he introduced.
> >>      
> > There's a difference between competence and knowledge. If someone were
> > to report a bug in the package I discussed a bit ago, from the report
> > I'd probably know what to ask to figure out what was going wrong, and
> > then - if it were likely to apply to future reports - I'd add that
> > information to the 'what information to ask for on bug reports for this
> > issue' page. So I'd consider myself competent enough to generate the
> > knowledge in the appropriate circumstance. But it's harder to work
> > entirely on theory - 'Imagine something's gone wrong. Now, what's the
> > first question you'd ask?'...that's a bit harder. Usually, the
> > information you get from someone when something actually goes wrong is
> > important in figuring out what question you're going to ask to figure
> > out how to fix it, and it's easier to identify patterns in what
> > information you need in _retrospect_ rather than in advance. For me,
> > anyway. It may be that this is different for others.
> >    
> 
> The ultimate goal ( atleast from my stand point ) is to make it 
> mandatory for a reporter to attache the needed file to be successfully 
> able to work with the report from the start! A reporter is filling a 
> bug, bugzilla checks if the file(s) the maintainer needs to have, have 
> been attached to the report if not reporter is not able to submit the 
> report. This eliminates unneeded/unwanted word games between maintainer 
> and reporter ( or triager and reporter if you will ) and provides the 
> maintainer with something to work with other than potentially half baked 
> description of the underlying issue from an inexperienced reporter..

Yeah, I don't think I explained it very well and it's not really the
most important thing anyway. Let's try and work on collecting the
information as the most important thing. For BugZappers - have you
checked the page I mentioned in my other reply in this thread, to see if
the necessary information for your components are listed there? If
there's some information that's often needed in reports relating to a
component you triage, make sure it has a page where this is explained,
following the style already used. Then you can point people to that to
explain what they should include, and it'll be available for others to
refer to.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net