Triaging Documentation bugs

[Thomas Ward]

I think we need to keep in mind this is the 'server guide' and might not
apply to the same policies as standard Ubuntu bug triage.  Especially
since the Documentation Team has ownership over that project.

The Bug Squad works in Ubuntu bugs, but the documentation bugs are not
necessarily under the Ubuntu Bug Triage processes.  I am not a member of
the Documentation team, but if the Server Guide (and other Documentation
Team governed bugs) are subject to standard Ubuntu Bug Triage rules,
then Walter's response here is accurate.

I believe this merits additional discussion between the Bug Triagers and
the Documentation Team to determine whether documentation bugs fall
under the same triage procedures as standard bugs or not.  (It stands to
reason that since it's documentation and not fixable code/packaging bugs
like most Ubuntu bugs, it might be a case of different statuses and
different guidelines, kind of like the special workflow bugs.)


On 12/05/2014 11:18 AM, Walter Lapchynski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Peter Matulis
>>> <peter.matulis at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> A discussion has surfaced within a doc bug [1] about how to triage bugs.
>>>> [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/serverguide/+bug/1327173
>>> My understanding is that this should be marked "Incomplete" since it's
>>> been looked at (not "New") but we're still trying to gather enough
>>> information to determine whether it's a bug or not (so can't "Confirm"
>>> it).
> Confirmed means that someone else sees that there's a problem.
> Ideally, this occurs when there are a series of steps to repeat the
> bug. How does that apply to the documentation? Just as Peter describes
> in the bug: someone needs to find the deficiency through following the
> instructions. Ideally, someone changes the description to have very
> clear sections of "steps to reproduce," "expected results," and
> "actual results."
>
> When the bug triager can confirm this themselves and has enough
> information that a clear fix can be derived (whether through a patch
> or simply describing the problem and its causes enough), then it can
> be triaged.
>
> Since information has been provided and the bug is stalled at
> confirming it, it's not incomplete. Waiting for confirmation is not
> equivalent to incomplete status. It would be nice for there to be a
> "not confirmed" status, but there's not. That being said, it stays
> "new."
>


------
Thomas
LP: ~teward