On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote:
More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what
a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it
directly with the developer in question
Okay, here's my example (of a different reason to comment on a closed bug).
I found bug #18022 that affected me,
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18022 . It was marked "closed" with
"Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4
+ xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1."
I requested to re-open, saying that I was running libdrm 2.4.17-4 and
xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1 and it was not fixed with those versions.
I got an e-mail response from FlySpray saying that the "assigned-to"
person (JGC) denied my request, with the justification being "There's
already an open bug for this."
I didn't see any obvious polite way to respond ( -- which is a Flyspray
issue. See below for what I did next/why.). Replying in another re-open
request seemed rude. If bug #18022 was a duplicate, I couldn't see
anywhere on the bug that said *which* open bug it was a duplicate of, so
I couldn't go make a comment "there" instead. Also, I searched, and in
my judgment no other bug in bugs.archlinux.org besides #18022 seemed to
quite match my symptoms. Also, I could have opened yet another bug, but
that seemed rude.
(Also, it's an upstream bug, albeit a bug that makes one's machine
unusable, so it isn't even one that I'd submit to Arch. But, the bug
existed in bugs.archlinux.org with inaccurate information that would
bother future bug seekers/reporters, so I wanted it to be marked some
way that's accurate, and would have liked to update it with my progress
at reporting the bug upstream.)
So I poked around and found JGC's email address according to
bugs.archlinux.org and e-mailed in response (although I didn't get a
response to my e-mail, so I don't know if it got to JGC successfully).
I wrote to JGC:
(I hope e-mailing your archlinux address is an okay way to reply, since your
reply to my reopen-request didn't appear anywhere on the Web that I could find)
If this bug is a duplicate, can you mark it as such, and say clearly which bug
it is a duplicate of?
All I want to do is to leave a comment about my progress reporting the bug
upstream, so that other people who search and find this archlinux bug will be
less confused...
This text is also a bit confusing given that the described bug is not fixed,
(nor even affected by upgrading to the mentioned versions)
"
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 +
xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1.
"
thanks?
-Isaac
