(edited irc conversation with proto-instructions ;))
[02:14] <nixeagle> alot of the bugs look like "load site, does issue still exist" variety :P
if there isn't a testcase, see if you can make one
that can be time consuming if there is one, it should be in the subject line
and on the "site-issue" bugs, it's entirely likely that it's a 6 year old site which has long vanished so read the comments, because there might be a useful testcase or something describing what was the problem in there. If it looks like there's enough to give a developer something to go on, put it under the "needs attention from dev" section.
If it has a testcase, toss it into the testcase section
If it has little information, and the site doesn't exist ---> INVALID ;)
[02:19] <nixeagle> right, I can't change bugs other then comment atm :P [02:19] <nixeagle> so I'll just say that :) [02:20] <blauzahl> that's ok, write your comment on the bug, always include your version (and distro if applicable) number [02:20] <blauzahl> and then write it on the wiki [02:21] <blauzahl> someone will go through and double check stuff and mark what should be marked for you [02:22] <blauzahl> if you aren't sure about something, get a second opinion, and maybe mention who seconded on the wiki, especially if it was a dev [02:22] <blauzahl> and you'll have your own bugzilla perms in no time :)
but if it works for us, then we close with WORKSFORME
if you know what piece of code fixed it (usually we won't, but a dev would), then you close with FIXED
the nice way of closing bugs that don't have enough information and you think are likely to be invalid at this point is REMIND :) and a note saying "if this is still a problem, please reopen with more information"
REMIND is useful :)
[02:26] <nixeagle> mmm right, and if I can still replicate, what do I do? [02:26] <blauzahl> see if it has a testcase, see if you can write one, put it on the wiki [02:27] <blauzahl> oh, and add a note saying the bug is still present and agian, and don't forget to give what version you're using.
<nixeagle> ok, so I put all bugs I look at on the wiki? [02:27] <blauzahl> pretty much. it gives us an easy way to go through and double check what people have done, especially useful for those who don't have bugzilla perms
[02:27] <nixeagle> ok, where on the wiki do I edit :) [02:28] <blauzahl> depends on what section [02:28] <blauzahl> if you go up a level or so from the link in the topic, you'll find the one from the last time we did this
[02:28] <blauzahl> you'll see how it's ended up looking now that we've gone through it a few times [02:29] <nixeagle> oh I see! [02:29] <blauzahl> we also use the wiki to some extent to coordinate comments, not so much [02:29] <nixeagle> this page is going to get big [02:29] <blauzahl> it does [02:29] <blauzahl> we're open to suggestions for a new system :) [02:29] <blauzahl> cause this won't scale ;) (We'll see how well what we have now works, thanks nixeagle!)
[02:32] <nixeagle> blauzahl, also...if you don't mind me asking, how many open bugs are against KDE as a whole? A ton. You can check at ...
If you just got a techbase wiki account, set the preferences to let you edit by section.
We want to keep it all on one page, because on the 2nd and 3rd pass, we tend to move things around a LOT from section to section as stuff changes.