From hggdh2 at ubuntu.com Mon Aug 1 13:22:59 2011 From: hggdh2 at ubuntu.com (C de-Avillez) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:22:59 -0500 Subject: Bug Importance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E36A8B3.7070909@ubuntu.com> On 07/29/2011 11:44 AM, Haneef Mubarak wrote: > I am unable to set importance of a bug on Launchpad even though I > am a member of BugSquad. Please help. > > This is how it works. Please see [1], first paragraph: "Ubuntu uses the following guidelines for assigning importance. The importance of the bug signifies the priority that it should be given by people fixing bugs. In order to set the Importance field of a bug in Launchpad , you need to be a member of UbuntuBugControl either through direct membership or because of your membership in another team. The importance of the bug should be set as soon as possible." You should read [2] -- there you will find how we work with bugs in Ubuntu. You should also subscribe to this mailing list. Cheers, ..C.. [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/KnowledgeBase -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 900 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Mon Aug 1 15:10:40 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:10:40 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22DebuggingKernelBoot=22_by_herton?= Message-ID: <20110801151040.15668.78294@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "DebuggingKernelBoot" page has been changed by herton: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingKernelBoot?action=diff&rev1=13&rev2=14 Comment: add set gfxpayload hint for natty 1. During the BIOS screen, press the shift key and hold it down. You should see the GRUB menu after the BIOS loads. 1. Navigate to the kernel entry you want to boot, and press 'e'. 1. Then remove the '''quiet''' and '''splash''' keywords (found in the line starting with linux) - 1. If running Natty (Ubuntu 11.04) also remove the parameter '''vt.handoff=7'''. + 1. If running Natty (Ubuntu 11.04) also remove the parameter '''vt.handoff=7''', and on the line that reads '''set gfxpayload=$linux_gfx_mode''', replace with '''set gfxpayload=text''' 1. Press 'Ctrl+x' to boot. It's best if you can attach a log file which may have captured any messages you see. If you are unable to capture a log file, a digital photo will work just as well. As a last resort you can even copy messages down by hand. From hggdh2 at ubuntu.com Mon Aug 1 20:52:12 2011 From: hggdh2 at ubuntu.com (C de-Avillez) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:52:12 -0500 Subject: Bug Importance In-Reply-To: References: <4E36A8B3.7070909@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <4E3711FC.4000203@ubuntu.com> On 08/01/2011 03:30 PM, Haneef Mubarak wrote: > and i have done all of those, i am a member of bugsquad on > launchpad, etc But you are not a member of Bug Control. From the excerpt I pasted below, on my first response to you: " In order to set the Importance field of a bug in Launchpad , ==> *you need to be a member of Ubuntu Bug Control* <== ." You are not a member of Bug Control. Cheers, ..C.. > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:22 AM, C de-Avillez > wrote: > > On 07/29/2011 11:44 AM, Haneef Mubarak wrote: > > I am unable to set importance of a bug on Launchpad even > though I > > am a member of BugSquad. Please help. > > > > > > This is how it works. Please see [1], first paragraph: > > "Ubuntu uses the following guidelines for assigning > importance. The > importance of the bug signifies the priority that it should be > given > by people fixing bugs. In order to set the Importance field of > a bug > in Launchpad , you need to be a > member of UbuntuBugControl > either through direct > membership or because of your membership in another team. The > importance of the bug should be set as soon as possible." > > You should read [2] -- there you will find how we work with > bugs in > Ubuntu. You should also subscribe to this mailing list. > > Cheers, > > ..C.. > > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance > [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/KnowledgeBase > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 900 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From haneef503 at gmail.com Mon Aug 1 20:30:47 2011 From: haneef503 at gmail.com (Haneef Mubarak) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:30:47 -0700 Subject: Bug Importance In-Reply-To: <4E36A8B3.7070909@ubuntu.com> References: <4E36A8B3.7070909@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: and i have done all of those, i am a member of bugsquad on launchpad, etc On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:22 AM, C de-Avillez wrote: > On 07/29/2011 11:44 AM, Haneef Mubarak wrote: > > I am unable to set importance of a bug on Launchpad even though I > > am a member of BugSquad. Please help. > > > > > > This is how it works. Please see [1], first paragraph: > > "Ubuntu uses the following guidelines for assigning importance. The > importance of the bug signifies the priority that it should be given > by people fixing bugs. In order to set the Importance field of a bug > in Launchpad , you need to be a > member of UbuntuBugControl > either through direct > membership or because of your membership in another team. The > importance of the bug should be set as soon as possible." > > You should read [2] -- there you will find how we work with bugs in > Ubuntu. You should also subscribe to this mailing list. > > Cheers, > > ..C.. > > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance > [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/KnowledgeBase > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom at hms123.com Mon Aug 1 21:44:49 2011 From: tom at hms123.com (Tom Hill) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 22:44:49 +0100 Subject: Bug Importance In-Reply-To: References: <4E36A8B3.7070909@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <74D42256-D6FD-4926-AAA2-383BB33F085A@hms123.com> It doesnt matter,you need to be a member of bug control not bug squad On 1 Aug 2011, at 21:30, Haneef Mubarak wrote: > and i have done all of those, i am a member of bugsquad on launchpad, etc > > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:22 AM, C de-Avillez wrote: > On 07/29/2011 11:44 AM, Haneef Mubarak wrote: > > I am unable to set importance of a bug on Launchpad even though I > > am a member of BugSquad. Please help. > > > > > > This is how it works. Please see [1], first paragraph: > > "Ubuntu uses the following guidelines for assigning importance. The > importance of the bug signifies the priority that it should be given > by people fixing bugs. In order to set the Importance field of a bug > in Launchpad , you need to be a > member of UbuntuBugControl > either through direct > membership or because of your membership in another team. The > importance of the bug should be set as soon as possible." > > You should read [2] -- there you will find how we work with bugs in > Ubuntu. You should also subscribe to this mailing list. > > Cheers, > > ..C.. > > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance > [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/KnowledgeBase > > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Aug 4 14:47:49 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:47:49 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/HowToFix=22_by_jbicha?= Message-ID: <20110804144749.26007.67968@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/HowToFix" page has been changed by jbicha: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToFix?action=diff&rev1=8&rev2=9 Comment: add ubuntu-sponsors entry to get your fix committed bzr push lp:~emmaadams/ubuntu/natty/specialpackage/fix-for-123456 bzr lp-open}}} - you should be all set. The push command should push it to Launchpad and the second command will open the Launchpad page of the remote branch in your browser. There find the "(+) Propose for merging" link, click it to get the change reviewed by somebody and included in Ubuntu. + you should be all set. The push command should push it to Launchpad and the second command will open the Launchpad page of the remote branch in your browser. There find the "(+) Propose for merging" link, click it to get the change reviewed by somebody and included in Ubuntu. If you can't find anyone to review your work, you can also click the "Subscribe someone else" link and add ubuntu-sponsors. ---- [[CategoryBugSquad]] From brian at ubuntu.com Mon Aug 8 17:54:19 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:54:19 -0700 Subject: Workarounds for bugs Message-ID: <20110808175419.GX2344@murraytwins.com> Providing a workaround[1] in a bug description is a way to help users accomplish a task until a fix for the bug is provided in Ubuntu. These should be identified as "WORKAROUND" in the bug description as documented in http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Description. Additionally, it would be useful if these were tagged 'workaround' so that we can use Launchpad's search features to find them. A wonderful thing about Ubuntu is the plethora of software and the variety of different ways to accomplish the same task. However, a workaround should not require one to use a different piece of software than the one they were trying to use or installing different software. For example, in http://launchpad.net/bugs/817626 I was trying to view a pdf at a notebook manufacturer's web site. I was unable to view the pages of the pdf using evince however Pedro mentioned to me that he could view using them Acrobat Reader. This would not qualify as a workaround for our purposes as it is a totally different piece of software. [1] http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=workaround Thanks, -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From marconifabio at hotmail.it Tue Aug 9 06:57:58 2011 From: marconifabio at hotmail.it (njin) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:57:58 +0200 Subject: Workarounds for bugs In-Reply-To: <20110808175419.GX2344@murraytwins.com> References: <20110808175419.GX2344@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: Il giorno lun, 08/08/2011 alle 10.54 -0700, Brian Murray ha scritto: > For example, in http://launchpad.net/bugs/817626 I was trying to view a > pdf at a notebook manufacturer's web site. I was unable to view the > pages of the pdf using evince however Pedro mentioned to me that he > could view using them Acrobat Reader. This would not qualify as a > workaround for our purposes as it is a totally different piece of > software. > Not really, looking at the https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39637 it's obvious that Pedro is pointing the fact that the pdf file is good and perfectly readable, meaning to me that he has perfectly managed the situation... Greeting, Fabio To everybody: don't drive if you are tired. From mcbean.james at yahoo.com Tue Aug 9 10:10:56 2011 From: mcbean.james at yahoo.com (Dr. James McBean) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: No subject Message-ID: <1312884656.72006.YahooMailMobile@web43412.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> http://vkmykwmved.page.tl/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Aug 9 15:37:27 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:37:27 -0700 Subject: Workarounds for bugs In-Reply-To: References: <20110808175419.GX2344@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <20110809153726.GA2344@murraytwins.com> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:57:58AM +0200, njin wrote: > Il giorno lun, 08/08/2011 alle 10.54 -0700, Brian Murray ha scritto: > > > For example, in http://launchpad.net/bugs/817626 I was trying to view a > > pdf at a notebook manufacturer's web site. I was unable to view the > > pages of the pdf using evince however Pedro mentioned to me that he > > could view using them Acrobat Reader. This would not qualify as a > > workaround for our purposes as it is a totally different piece of > > software. > > > Not really, looking at the > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39637 > it's obvious that Pedro is pointing the fact that the pdf file is good > and perfectly readable, meaning to me that he has perfectly managed the > situation... Yes, Pedro did handle this correctly - notice the fact that bug 817626 does not have a workaround in the bug description. I was just using a bug that I had recently reported as an example of something that does not and should not have a workaround. -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Aug 11 19:07:57 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:07:57 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Tags=22_by_brian-murray?= Message-ID: <20110811190757.28708.57661@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Tags" page has been changed by brian-murray: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags?action=diff&rev1=183&rev2=184 || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=apport-bug|`apport-bug`]] || A bug reported using "Report a Problem" in an application's Help menu contains lots of details! || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=apport-collected|`apport-collected`]] || A bug that has had apport-collect ran against it which will contain additional information || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=apport-crash|`apport-crash`]] || A crash reported by apport - Ubuntu's automated problem reporter || - || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=apport-package|`apport-package`]] || A bug reported by apport when a package failed to install or upgrade || + || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=apport-package|`apport-package`]] || A bug reported by apport when a package operation failed || + || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=package-conflict | `package-conflict`]] || A bug reported by apport when a package operation failed due to a conflict with a file provided by another package || || [[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs?field.tag=derivatives|`derivatives`]] || Bugs related to Derivatives || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=desktop-file|`desktop-file`]] || The bug requests the addition/fix of a .desktop file. || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.status:list=FIXRELEASED&field.tag=fix-to-verify|`fix-to-verify`]] || A bug that is Fix Released and should be verified when performing iso testing of daily builds or milestones || From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 23 20:45:10 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:45:10 +0100 Subject: Old bug reports Message-ID: There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported versions of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cjk at teamcharliesangels.com Tue Aug 23 20:59:33 2011 From: cjk at teamcharliesangels.com (Charlie Kravetz) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:59:33 -0600 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110823145933.1bf865d5@teamcharliesangels.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:45:10 +0100 Carl Ansell wrote: > > There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported versions of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. > > > As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? > > > I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. > Any bug should be verified as no longer valid in the latest supported or development version before it is marked as invalid. The fact that the bug was reported in dapper or edgy does not make automatically make it invalid. If the application is still in use, and still contains the bug, it is still a valid bug. A bug in any version that is fixed in the development version can be marked as fixed-release. We even have a standard response for that at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Fixed_in_Development_release_while_still_existing_in_a_previous_release - -- Charlie Kravetz Linux Registered User Number 425914 [http://counter.li.org/] Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOVBS1AAoJEFNEIRz9dxbA9/kIAJeNpEG9Aaa75rQrr0xFAsyL 43izJUypgIozI4yMI+c47sPWKb2TP9H1vJknt0/US+NY/2Wa46n0jXdjFCNhxCQ8 Gy8qq588wog5Y88ZxDNKv1cD6iZX4JAxs86iUzIrGAMp9EkfOZUokgk3bhHPf6ww TW+b7M2mLFp4MksyjVkuxL95PffIo7YYWoSnPRUCgB/muzHsk0WGkr0T9pqtHGZh /NpsnLgzDnU2uVKE2RfQQ82J2/O6ZdzLTb9/WHotBS5l+Irj3XzT/v1BXMJaSGW4 2eoAc5i6uslrfssmYlM33Yyhr4rpwsxk1+HQn3s2uTMadNSd62STBrkPDyanK2M= =XNBe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From timothy.mayoh at gmail.com Tue Aug 23 21:00:50 2011 From: timothy.mayoh at gmail.com (Timothy Mayoh) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:00:50 +0100 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe the best approach would be to mark the report as incomplete, and then try and contact the original submitter with this canned response in the comments, assuming they are still active: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Release_has_reached_EOL . If they do not respond, then the bug would be automatically marked as invalid within 60 days anyway. Alternatively, if you are certain the original reporter and all other people the bug affects are no longer active in Launchpad - you can probably safely mark the bug as invalid immediately. It would be nice if someone could create an automated way of doing this though - it could take a very long time manually due to the large volume of reports. On 23 August 2011 21:45, Carl Ansell wrote: > There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported versions > of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. > > > As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? > > > I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which > bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to > start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Aug 23 21:07:45 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:07:45 -0700 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: <20110823145933.1bf865d5@teamcharliesangels.com> References: <20110823145933.1bf865d5@teamcharliesangels.com> Message-ID: <20110823210745.GF12970@murraytwins.com> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 02:59:33PM -0600, Charlie Kravetz wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:45:10 +0100 > Carl Ansell wrote: > > > > > There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported versions of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. > > > > > > As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? > > > > > > I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. > > > > Any bug should be verified as no longer valid in the latest supported > or development version before it is marked as invalid. The fact that > the bug was reported in dapper or edgy does not make automatically make > it invalid. If the application is still in use, and still contains the > bug, it is still a valid bug. > > A bug in any version that is fixed in the development version can be > marked as fixed-release. We even have a standard response for that at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Fixed_in_Development_release_while_still_existing_in_a_previous_release Charlie is absolutely correct on this point. Bugs are assumed to affect the latest release of Ubuntu and be carried forward from release to release. Subsequently, every bug should be tested with the latest release of Ubuntu. If we really want to make Ubuntu better that will involve fixing all the bugs rather than just closing them because they are old. -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From tome.b2b at gmail.com Tue Aug 23 22:11:06 2011 From: tome.b2b at gmail.com (Tom King) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:11:06 -0400 Subject: bug report attached Message-ID: *I have one hell of a time trying to get a bug report sent. Here it is as an attachment. Hope it tells you something good. * -- *___Tom* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: errorScreenshotAug23_2011.png Type: image/png Size: 79813 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tiagolramos at gmail.com Tue Aug 23 23:13:40 2011 From: tiagolramos at gmail.com (tiago ramos) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:13:40 +0100 Subject: bug report attached In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi tom, Check this page, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs it might help us all. On 23 August 2011 23:11, Tom King wrote: > I have one hell of a time trying to get a bug report sent. > Here it is as an attachment. > Hope it tells you something good. > > -- > ___Tom > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > > From micahg at ubuntu.com Wed Aug 24 02:50:56 2011 From: micahg at ubuntu.com (Micah Gersten) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:50:56 -0500 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Corrected top posting... On 08/23/2011 04:00 PM, Timothy Mayoh wrote: > On 23 August 2011 21:45, Carl Ansell > wrote: > > There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported > versions of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. > > > As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as > invalid? > > > I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear > which bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, > I don't want to start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. > > > I believe the best approach would be to mark the report as incomplete, > and then try and contact the original submitter with this canned > response in the comments, assuming they are still active: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Release_has_reached_EOL . If > they do not respond, then the bug would be automatically marked as > invalid within 60 days anyway. > This is only good if the bug isn't reproducible in the devel release or in any release after it was reported (not saying they all have to be tested, but that if a user chooses to test an older release and can't reproduce, that should be sufficient). Otherwise, just asking people to reproduce again was decided against in previous bugsquad meetings as it annoys reporters and dissuades people from reporting bugs. > Alternatively, if you are certain the original reporter and all other > people the bug affects are no longer active in Launchpad - you can > probably safely mark the bug as invalid immediately. > I don't agree with this. Just because the person is no longer around doesn't make the bug invalid. Please remember, the point of bug reports isn't to necessarily make people happy, but to find the defects and actually repair them eventually. Thanks, Micah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timothy.mayoh at gmail.com Wed Aug 24 08:37:21 2011 From: timothy.mayoh at gmail.com (Timothy Mayoh) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:37:21 +0100 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: Sorry - I probably should have been more specific about marking bugs invalid immediately; I was referring to when the bug really didn't have anywhere enough information to work on it and no-one actually could reproduce it other than the reporter or whoever claims that it affects them, and only if they are all impossible to contact (as is already eventually done when there is no more activity on an incomplete bug for more than 60 days anyway). If the bug is already confirmed or triaged and can be reproduced in newer, supported releases or the development release by other people, then I agree it makes no sense to ask the original reporter to test to see if it exists in a newer release just for the sake of it, if his/her version is still within support. Although to this day I see many people reporting bugs with unsupported versions of Ubuntu who simply don't realise there is a newer version available or haven't upgraded for whatever reason who could do with a little push to switch to a current version, for their own benefit; for example I believe that to be the case with these bug reports: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827638 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827000 I'm not saying that upgrading will necessarily automatically fix the bug in every case, but it is always a good idea to be using a release which still receives security/performance/reliability fixes either way. On 24 August 2011 03:50, Micah Gersten wrote: > ** > Corrected top posting... > > On 08/23/2011 04:00 PM, Timothy Mayoh wrote: > > On 23 August 2011 21:45, Carl Ansell wrote: > >> There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported >> versions of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. >> >> >> As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? >> >> >> I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which >> bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to >> start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. >> >> >> I believe the best approach would be to mark the report as incomplete, > and then try and contact the original submitter with this canned response in > the comments, assuming they are still active: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Release_has_reached_EOL . If they > do not respond, then the bug would be automatically marked as invalid within > 60 days anyway. > > This is only good if the bug isn't reproducible in the devel release or in > any release after it was reported (not saying they all have to be tested, > but that if a user chooses to test an older release and can't reproduce, > that should be sufficient). Otherwise, just asking people to reproduce > again was decided against in previous bugsquad meetings as it annoys > reporters and dissuades people from reporting bugs. > > > Alternatively, if you are certain the original reporter and all other > people the bug affects are no longer active in Launchpad - you can probably > safely mark the bug as invalid immediately. > > I don't agree with this. Just because the person is no longer around > doesn't make the bug invalid. Please remember, the point of bug reports > isn't to necessarily make people happy, but to find the defects and actually > repair them eventually. > > Thanks, > Micah > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 24 18:01:23 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:01:23 +0100 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: , , <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com>, Message-ID: Thanks for the replies. I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and fix released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a comment stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not been backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation? In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most productive thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and feel that I am still learning about the whole bug reporting and triaging process. As such I think this would be a more simple thing to start with, given that many bugs have been inactive for years and would be less of an issue should I make a mistake. Thanks again, Carl Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:37:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Old bug reports From: timothy.mayoh at gmail.com To: Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com Sorry - I probably should have been more specific about marking bugs invalid immediately; I was referring to when the bug really didn't have anywhere enough information to work on it and no-one actually could reproduce it other than the reporter or whoever claims that it affects them, and only if they are all impossible to contact (as is already eventually done when there is no more activity on an incomplete bug for more than 60 days anyway). If the bug is already confirmed or triaged and can be reproduced in newer, supported releases or the development release by other people, then I agree it makes no sense to ask the original reporter to test to see if it exists in a newer release just for the sake of it, if his/her version is still within support. Although to this day I see many people reporting bugs with unsupported versions of Ubuntu who simply don't realise there is a newer version available or haven't upgraded for whatever reason who could do with a little push to switch to a current version, for their own benefit; for example I believe that to be the case with these bug reports: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827638 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827000 I'm not saying that upgrading will necessarily automatically fix the bug in every case, but it is always a good idea to be using a release which still receives security/performance/reliability fixes either way. On 24 August 2011 03:50, Micah Gersten wrote: Corrected top posting... On 08/23/2011 04:00 PM, Timothy Mayoh wrote: On 23 August 2011 21:45, Carl Ansell wrote: There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported versions of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. I believe the best approach would be to mark the report as incomplete, and then try and contact the original submitter with this canned response in the comments, assuming they are still active: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Release_has_reached_EOL . If they do not respond, then the bug would be automatically marked as invalid within 60 days anyway. This is only good if the bug isn't reproducible in the devel release or in any release after it was reported (not saying they all have to be tested, but that if a user chooses to test an older release and can't reproduce, that should be sufficient). Otherwise, just asking people to reproduce again was decided against in previous bugsquad meetings as it annoys reporters and dissuades people from reporting bugs. Alternatively, if you are certain the original reporter and all other people the bug affects are no longer active in Launchpad - you can probably safely mark the bug as invalid immediately. I don't agree with this. Just because the person is no longer around doesn't make the bug invalid. Please remember, the point of bug reports isn't to necessarily make people happy, but to find the defects and actually repair them eventually. Thanks, Micah -- Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tiagolramos at gmail.com Wed Aug 24 18:21:14 2011 From: tiagolramos at gmail.com (tiago ramos) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:21:14 +0100 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: Dapper and Edgy are unsupported at the moment, if the bug is fixed in the supported releases it should be closed. I could risk saying with the "won't fix" tag On 24 August 2011 19:01, Carl Ansell wrote: > Thanks for the replies. > > > I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and fix > released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a comment > stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not been > backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation? > > > In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most productive > thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and feel that I am > still learning about the whole bug reporting and triaging process. As such I > think this would be a more simple thing to start with, given that many bugs > have been inactive for years and would be less of an issue should I make a > mistake. > > > > Thanks again, > Carl > > ________________________________ > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:37:21 +0100 > Subject: Re: Old bug reports > From: timothy.mayoh at gmail.com > To: Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > > Sorry - I probably should have been more specific about marking bugs invalid > immediately; I was referring to when the bug really didn't have anywhere > enough information to work on it and no-one actually could reproduce it > other than the reporter or whoever claims that it affects them, and only if > they are all impossible to contact (as is already eventually done when there > is no more activity on an incomplete bug for more than 60 days anyway). > > If the bug is already confirmed or triaged and can be reproduced in newer, > supported releases or the development release by other people, then I agree > it makes no sense to ask the original reporter to test to see if it exists > in a newer release just for the sake of it, if his/her version is still > within support. > > Although to this day I see many people reporting bugs with unsupported > versions of Ubuntu who simply don't realise there is a newer version > available or haven't upgraded for whatever reason who could do with a little > push to switch to a current version, for their own benefit; for example I > believe that to be the case with these bug reports: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827638 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827000 > > I'm not saying that upgrading will necessarily automatically fix the bug in > every case, but it is always a good idea to be using a release which still > receives security/performance/reliability fixes either way. > > On 24 August 2011 03:50, Micah Gersten wrote: > > Corrected top posting... > On 08/23/2011 04:00 PM, Timothy Mayoh wrote: > > On 23 August 2011 21:45, Carl Ansell wrote: > > There are many old reports in launchpad that apply to unsupported versions > of Ubuntu, such as Dapper and Edgy. > > > As these releases are no longer supported, can these be marked as invalid? > > > I feel it would 'clean up' the bugs in launchpad and make it clear which > bugs are still relevant, but as someone new to the bugsquad, I don't want to > start messing with things that I shouldn't mess with. > > > I believe the best approach would be to mark the report as incomplete, and > then try and contact the original submitter with this canned response in the > comments, assuming they are still active: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Release_has_reached_EOL . If they do > not respond, then the bug would be automatically marked as invalid within 60 > days anyway. > > This is only good if the bug isn't reproducible in the devel release or in > any release after it was reported (not saying they all have to be tested, > but that if a user chooses to test an older release and can't reproduce, > that should be sufficient).  Otherwise, just asking people to reproduce > again was decided against in previous bugsquad meetings as it annoys > reporters and dissuades people from reporting bugs. > > Alternatively, if you are certain the original reporter and all other people > the bug affects are no longer active in Launchpad - you can probably safely > mark the bug as invalid immediately. > > I don't agree with this.  Just because the person is no longer around > doesn't make the bug invalid.  Please remember, the point of bug reports > isn't to necessarily make people happy, but to find the defects and actually > repair them eventually. > > Thanks, > Micah > > > -- Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > > From cjk at teamcharliesangels.com Wed Aug 24 18:23:45 2011 From: cjk at teamcharliesangels.com (Charlie Kravetz) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:23:45 -0600 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <20110824122345.19beb715@teamcharliesangels.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:01:23 +0100 Carl Ansell wrote: > > Thanks for the replies. > > > I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and fix released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a comment stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not been backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation? > > > In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most productive thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and feel that I am still learning about the whole bug reporting and triaging process. As such I think this would be a more simple thing to start with, given that many bugs have been inactive for years and would be less of an issue should I make a mistake. > > > > Thanks again, > Carl If the bug is fixed in any release, but still present in a release that is now EOL, you can comment that the release it was reported in is no longer supported and the bug will not be fixed in that non-supported release. It can then be closed as invalid for that release. However, again, I would state that no bug is automatically invalid for being old. Please verify that the bug is not present in the latest stable or development release before closing the bug report. - -- Charlie Kravetz Linux Registered User Number 425914 [http://counter.li.org/] Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOVUGxAAoJEFNEIRz9dxbAZywIAI7upUqOSkI7sYC3l9UWZmi9 jKi+y1O8g8VMun5Khhd/WLD+bQ76SCDbIcHt8eVowSsuEI37tvHRT0HV+HDoQ+CP uY14OqEf4uod+hvesJXpyU/Ws4aKi8XtmRgovaIdq1QRL00ZjykTwPEwsZGFY9BP ZTg/gZJXFl1VYP1sOe6HNv1O13wqRJuR/wvBUyRSTKlL1j6JJT7t//QyDRow+XLE W5QHt6BpXdsZ6ZijUnHtCxvZd3/a4eQY50zfll6CnVeP1Qcxb1Ue774LKqJJMutt uaIeLr3o3UKAcovEB+7waG1v3i7JeAyu4VTKMBmn3HXbeGjlLE0qUS2Wgxz6XtA= =lUdV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From brian at ubuntu.com Wed Aug 24 19:31:28 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:31:28 -0700 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: <20110824122345.19beb715@teamcharliesangels.com> References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> <20110824122345.19beb715@teamcharliesangels.com> Message-ID: <20110824193128.GH12970@murraytwins.com> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:23:45PM -0600, Charlie Kravetz wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:01:23 +0100 > Carl Ansell wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the replies. > > > > > > I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and fix released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a comment stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not been backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation? > > > > > > In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most productive thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and feel that I am still learning about the whole bug reporting and triaging process. As such I think this would be a more simple thing to start with, given that many bugs have been inactive for years and would be less of an issue should I make a mistake. > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > Carl > > If the bug is fixed in any release, but still present in a release that > is now EOL, you can comment that the release it was reported in is no > longer supported and the bug will not be fixed in that non-supported > release. It can then be closed as invalid for that release. Please also keep in mind that if the bug does not have a specific release task (like http://launchpad.net/bugs/830923 which you can see says "Oneiric" in it) the bug is considered to affect the current development release of Ubuntu. This is even the case if there is release specific information in the description. We assume that the bug also exists in the current development release. -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Wed Aug 24 19:32:45 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:32:45 -0700 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <20110824193245.GI12970@murraytwins.com> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:21:14PM +0100, tiago ramos wrote: > Dapper and Edgy are unsupported at the moment, if the bug is fixed in > the supported releases it should be closed. > I could risk saying with the "won't fix" tag Only if there was a release specific task for the Dapper or Edgy releases should it be closed "Won't Fix", otherwise because the default task is assumed to affect the current development release the task should be set to "Fix Released". -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Wed Aug 24 19:54:50 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:54:50 -0700 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <20110824195450.GJ12970@murraytwins.com> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:01:23PM +0100, Carl Ansell wrote: > > Thanks for the replies. > > > I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and > fix released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a > comment stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not > been backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation? > > > In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most > productive thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and > feel that I am still learning about the whole bug reporting and > triaging process. As such I think this would be a more simple thing to > start with, given that many bugs have been inactive for years and > would be less of an issue should I make a mistake. This is really interesting, thanks for bringing this up. Personally, I think working with old bugs will actually teach you less and be less productive. Because the bug report is older it is much less likely to be active - you could set the bug report to Incomplete and never receive a response. Additionally, a more recent bug is more likely to receive comments from other triagers and developments which may teach you something. Finally, one of the best ways to learn (for me at least) is by making mistakes. So I suggest working with newer bugs if you have any doubts about what the right thing to do is or how to proceed with a bug please ask your questions on this mailing list or in #ubuntu-bugs on freenode. Sincerely, -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Wed Aug 24 20:04:14 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: References: <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <20110824200413.GK12970@murraytwins.com> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:37:21AM +0100, Timothy Mayoh wrote: > Sorry - I probably should have been more specific about marking bugs invalid > immediately; I was referring to when the bug really didn't have anywhere > enough information to work on it and no-one actually could reproduce it > other than the reporter or whoever claims that it affects them, and only if > they are all impossible to contact (as is already eventually done when there > is no more activity on an incomplete bug for more than 60 days anyway). I would hope that in these cases the bug task would be Incomplete and that it would subsequently automatically transition to the Expired status. I'd be interested in seeing specific examples where this is not the case. > If the bug is already confirmed or triaged and can be reproduced in newer, > supported releases or the development release by other people, then I agree > it makes no sense to ask the original reporter to test to see if it exists > in a newer release just for the sake of it, if his/her version is still > within support. > > Although to this day I see many people reporting bugs with unsupported > versions of Ubuntu who simply don't realise there is a newer version > available or haven't upgraded for whatever reason who could do with a little > push to switch to a current version, for their own benefit; for example I > believe that to be the case with these bug reports: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827638 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/827000 These are rather fascinating. I wonder if there should be an SRU done for apport for releases as they reach EOL that prevents bug reporting. This would also make sense for apport-package bug reports that get reported automatically. Your response here makes sense but I'd clarify the fact that you can't really upgrade directly from 9.10 to 11.04. Furthermore, I'd point out where one can obtain the appropriate isos for upgrading. -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 24 21:24:12 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:24:12 +0100 Subject: Old bug reports In-Reply-To: <20110824195450.GJ12970@murraytwins.com> References: , , <4E546710.1090101@ubuntu.com>, , , <20110824195450.GJ12970@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: I found this interesting, I hadn't really thought about it like that. It also seems that dealing with old bugs is not as clear cut as I had imagined. I'll start taking a look at some bugs, I like the thought that I am helping make Ubuntu and GNU/Linux in general better. Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:54:50 -0700 From: brian at ubuntu.com To: ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Old bug reports On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:01:23PM +0100, Carl Ansell wrote: > > Thanks for the replies. > > > I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and > fix released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a > comment stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not > been backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation? > > > In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most > productive thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and > feel that I am still learning about the whole bug reporting and > triaging process. As such I think this would be a more simple thing to > start with, given that many bugs have been inactive for years and > would be less of an issue should I make a mistake. This is really interesting, thanks for bringing this up. Personally, I think working with old bugs will actually teach you less and be less productive. Because the bug report is older it is much less likely to be active - you could set the bug report to Incomplete and never receive a response. Additionally, a more recent bug is more likely to receive comments from other triagers and developments which may teach you something. Finally, one of the best ways to learn (for me at least) is by making mistakes. So I suggest working with newer bugs if you have any doubts about what the right thing to do is or how to proceed with a bug please ask your questions on this mailing list or in #ubuntu-bugs on freenode. Sincerely, -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -- Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahmad.a.ali at hotmail.com Sat Aug 27 17:30:27 2011 From: ahmad.a.ali at hotmail.com (Ahmad Ali) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:30:27 +0200 Subject: Wifi bug solution In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi, i cant find the solution for, wifi issues with connection onbattery, bug795273, whenever i disconnect the ac adapter my wifi stopworking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Sun Aug 28 01:18:24 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 01:18:24 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22DebuggingKeyboardDetection=22_by?= =?utf-8?q?_and-sam?= Message-ID: <20110828011824.4679.89106@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" page has been changed by and-sam: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingKeyboardDetection?action=diff&rev1=14&rev2=15 Comment: According to Bug #835503 changed name of package to file a bug against ## Before filing a bug please check the list of [#knownbugs known bugs] at the end of this document. - Keyboard related bugs should initially be filed against '''xserver-xorg-input-keyboard'''. + Keyboard related bugs should initially be filed against '''xserver-xorg-input-evdev'''. - If the bug turns out to be a kernel bug or a bug in another package, bug triagers can assign the bug additionally to that package and mark the xserver-xorg-input-keyboard task as invalid. + If the bug turns out to be a kernel bug or a bug in another package, bug triagers can assign the bug additionally to that package and mark the xserver-xorg-input-evdev task as invalid. <> == General information == From rinaldo.jonathan at windowslive.com Mon Aug 29 03:22:20 2011 From: rinaldo.jonathan at windowslive.com (rinaldo.jonathan at windowslive.com) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:22:20 +0000 Subject: Ubuntu-bugsquad Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425556687-1314588146-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9844206-@b17.c1.bise3.blackberry> VvvvVvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVvVVVVVVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbhhhjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbBbbbbbbbvvvvvvmmmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT -----Original Message----- From: ubuntu-bugsquad-request at lists.ubuntu.com Sender: ubuntu-bugsquad-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:00:04 To: Reply-To: ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Ubuntu-bugsquad Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10 Send Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list submissions to ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ubuntu-bugsquad-request at lists.ubuntu.com You can reach the person managing the list at ubuntu-bugsquad-owner at lists.ubuntu.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ubuntu-bugsquad digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Wifi bug solution (Ahmad Ali) 2. [Ubuntu Wiki] Update of "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" by and-sam (Ubuntu Wiki) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:30:27 +0200 From: Ahmad Ali To: Subject: Wifi bug solution Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, i cant find the solution for, wifi issues with connection onbattery, bug795273, whenever i disconnect the ac adapter my wifi stopworking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 01:18:24 -0000 From: Ubuntu Wiki To: Ubuntu Wiki Subject: [Ubuntu Wiki] Update of "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" by and-sam Message-ID: <20110828011824.4679.89106 at mangaba.canonical.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" page has been changed by and-sam: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingKeyboardDetection?action=diff&rev1=14&rev2=15 Comment: According to Bug #835503 changed name of package to file a bug against ## Before filing a bug please check the list of [#knownbugs known bugs] at the end of this document. - Keyboard related bugs should initially be filed against '''xserver-xorg-input-keyboard'''. + Keyboard related bugs should initially be filed against '''xserver-xorg-input-evdev'''. - If the bug turns out to be a kernel bug or a bug in another package, bug triagers can assign the bug additionally to that package and mark the xserver-xorg-input-keyboard task as invalid. + If the bug turns out to be a kernel bug or a bug in another package, bug triagers can assign the bug additionally to that package and mark the xserver-xorg-input-evdev task as invalid. <> == General information == ------------------------------ -- Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad End of Ubuntu-bugsquad Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10 *********************************************** From coalwater5 at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 03:32:25 2011 From: coalwater5 at gmail.com (Mohammad AbuShady) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:32:25 +0400 Subject: Ubuntu-bugsquad Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <425556687-1314588146-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9844206-@b17.c1.bise3.blackberry> References: <425556687-1314588146-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-9844206-@b17.c1.bise3.blackberry> Message-ID: someone forgot to lock his phone keypad? On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:22 AM, wrote: > > VvvvVvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVvVVVVVVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbhhhjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbBbbbbbbbvvvvvvmmmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa > Sent from my BlackBerry® > powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT > > -----Original Message----- > From: ubuntu-bugsquad-request at lists.ubuntu.com > Sender: ubuntu-bugsquad-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com > Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:00:04 > To: > Reply-To: ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > Subject: Ubuntu-bugsquad Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10 > > Send Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list submissions to > ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ubuntu-bugsquad-request at lists.ubuntu.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ubuntu-bugsquad-owner at lists.ubuntu.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Ubuntu-bugsquad digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Wifi bug solution (Ahmad Ali) > 2. [Ubuntu Wiki] Update of "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" by > and-sam (Ubuntu Wiki) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:30:27 +0200 > From: Ahmad Ali > To: > Subject: Wifi bug solution > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Hi, i cant find the solution for, wifi issues with connection onbattery, > bug795273, whenever i disconnect the ac adapter my wifi stopworking. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20110827/b12e9094/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 01:18:24 -0000 > From: Ubuntu Wiki > To: Ubuntu Wiki > Subject: [Ubuntu Wiki] Update of "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" by > and-sam > Message-ID: <20110828011824.4679.89106 at mangaba.canonical.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Wiki user, > > You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for > change notification. > > The "DebuggingKeyboardDetection" page has been changed by and-sam: > > http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingKeyboardDetection?action=diff&rev1=14&rev2=15 > > Comment: > According to Bug #835503 changed name of package to file a bug against > > > ## Before filing a bug please check the list of [#knownbugs known bugs] at > the end of this document. > > - Keyboard related bugs should initially be filed against > '''xserver-xorg-input-keyboard'''. > + Keyboard related bugs should initially be filed against > '''xserver-xorg-input-evdev'''. > - If the bug turns out to be a kernel bug or a bug in another package, bug > triagers can assign the bug additionally to that package and mark the > xserver-xorg-input-keyboard task as invalid. > + If the bug turns out to be a kernel bug or a bug in another package, bug > triagers can assign the bug additionally to that package and mark the > xserver-xorg-input-evdev task as invalid. > > <> > == General information == > > > > ------------------------------ > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > > > End of Ubuntu-bugsquad Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10 > *********************************************** > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cyan.spam at gmail.com Tue Aug 30 00:07:55 2011 From: cyan.spam at gmail.com (David Tombs) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:07:55 -0400 Subject: Wifi bug solution In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <4E5C29DB.5070203@gmail.com> On 08/27/2011 01:30 PM, Ahmad Ali wrote: > Hi, i cant find the solution for, wifi issues with connection on > battery, bug795273, whenever i disconnect the ac adapter my wifi stop > working. Hi Ahmad, I'm sorry, but this list is not for getting help with bugs. Please use one of the options available at . Thanks, David From kelemeng at gnome.hu Tue Aug 30 13:51:21 2011 From: kelemeng at gnome.hu (Gabor Kelemen) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:51:21 +0200 Subject: Ubuntu Translations bugday Message-ID: <4E5CEAD9.4010800@gnome.hu> Hi Bugsquad First of all, I think I owe you an apology, because I proposed to organize a bugday, which didn't happened. I'm sorry for that. However, I have not given up on the topic, and this is the reason of this mail. Can we have a bug day on Ubuntu Translations in one or two weeks time? Also, I talked to David Planella about the goal of such an event, and we agreed that it is raising awareness about our project and bugs among members of the bugsquad. Small problem is, that we don't have that many untriaged bugs to start with (<50). We have a good idea summed up in bug 487873[1], and executing that could be a perfect task for a bug day, instead of the usual triaging. A quick search for bugs in Ubuntu containing the "translat" word results about 1100 bugs, and I think there is quite a few translation problems among them which are not on our radar yet. I think we should not try to do triaging at the same time, going trough the list and deciding which are the translation bugs is going to be a big enough task. This would need a little change in the usual workflow, but I have some plans for that, if you approve this. Let us know what you think. Regards Gabor Kelemen [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-translations/+bug/487873 - Search for translation bugs only reported in ubuntu and assign them to ubuntu-translations