Re: File a new bug or re-open an old one
Answer bottom-posted. -- Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 Just when you think your software is idiot proof, somebody comes up with a better idiot Keyboard not found...Press any key to continue. - Original Message > From: C de-Avillez > To: Bruce Miller > Cc: Ubuntu developer list > Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 11:36:56 AM > Subject: Re: File a new bug or re-open an old one > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Bruce Miller < > ymailto="mailto:subscr...@brmiller.ca"; > href="mailto:subscr...@brmiller.ca";>subscr...@brmiller.ca> > wrote: Hello Bruce, > I am not an Ubuntu developer; I learn a > lot, however, from lurking on > this list. If this is not the right forum > to raise this issue, I > would be grateful for a pointer in a better > direction. I would say that you are raising a point that *can* be > discussed here. But usually, for bug management, > ymailto="mailto:ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com"; > href="mailto:ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com";>ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com > > or > href="mailto:ubuntu-bugcont...@lists.launchpad.net";>ubuntu-bugcont...@lists.launchpad.net > > are the ideal MLs. > The focus of this > message is one bug which the Apport retracer on > Launchpad tagged as a > duplicate. The original bug (of which mine was > marked duplicate) was > originally submitted on 2009-12-14, that is, as > Karmic was approaching > release. A fix was released the following day, > 2009-10-15. > > > I suspect that I may be dealing with a regression. If I do nothing > to > flag that concern, there would appear to be a risk that the bug > would > never come to the attention of a developer. > > I > have therefore changed the status of the bug from "Fix Released" to > > "New." I also deleted the tag "regression-retracer," and substituted > the > tag "regression-potential." Notwithstanding anything else (see below), > tagging it 'regression-potential' is absolutely correct. > I > personally would always hesitate to re-open a bug once it is marked > "Fix > Released," and would prefer to file a new bug. The designers of > the > Apport retracer see matters differently. Are the changes in > status to > the old bug the best way to signal that it once again > requires > attention? Is there a better way? This is one of the cases where it is > difficult to say which would be the best way (and I cannot be precise because > you did not give us a link to this particular bug). But the following may > help: (a) if a regression (potential or confirmed) is found within a > release cycle *and* there is a bug, fixed in this cycle that > theoretically addresses it, *then* reopening the bug is a good first > approach; (b) if a regression (potential or confirmed) is found on a > newer release *and* there is a bug, from a previous release > that theoretically fixed this issue, *then* open a _new_ bug (and refer > to the previous one in it): it is possible that the package was changed > in between, and the regression re-introduced. In your case -- and > still with the caveat that I do not know the real issue, package, etc -- I > would rather open a new bug (and refer to the old one): the original bug > addressed a previous (k)ubuntu release and Kubuntu has been going through > many updates, ergo probably re-introduced. I hope this > helps. ..C.. >p.s. thank you for helping! Thank you for the helpful and thoughtful answer. Thanks also for the pointer to the bug management mailing lists. It was a conscious decision not to name the bugs that I was concerned about. The reasoning was this: Ubuntu allows non-developers, like me, unrestricted access to this mailing list. I learn from lurking here but know that you could close that access any time that non-developers degraded the signal/noise ratio badly. I have seen many "Ubuntu sucks! I'm quitting Ubuntu" rants and the hard feelings they generate. I was worried that a couple of nasty core functionality problems had arisen suddenly --- at least on my two Ubuntu systems --- around the time Beta 1 was released but was determined to try to contribute and not to whinge and whine. I know that the core Ubuntu developers are working their tails off to get Lucid ready for release. That this is going to be a Long Term Support (LTS) release only increases the pressure. Since I posted my first message, it has therefore been gratifying to see how quickly those two specific problems have come to the attention of core developers and --- since I am not a code jockey --- I have learned another t
Re: File a new bug or re-open an old one
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Bruce Miller wrote: Hello Bruce, > I am not an Ubuntu developer; I learn a lot, however, from lurking on > this list. If this is not the right forum to raise this issue, I > would be grateful for a pointer in a better direction. I would say that you are raising a point that *can* be discussed here. But usually, for bug management, ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com or ubuntu-bugcont...@lists.launchpad.net are the ideal MLs. > The focus of this message is one bug which the Apport retracer on > Launchpad tagged as a duplicate. The original bug (of which mine was > marked duplicate) was originally submitted on 2009-12-14, that is, as > Karmic was approaching release. A fix was released the following day, > 2009-10-15. > > I suspect that I may be dealing with a regression. If I do nothing to > flag that concern, there would appear to be a risk that the bug would > never come to the attention of a developer. > > I have therefore changed the status of the bug from "Fix Released" to > "New." I also deleted the tag "regression-retracer," and substituted > the tag "regression-potential." Notwithstanding anything else (see below), tagging it 'regression-potential' is absolutely correct. > I personally would always hesitate to re-open a bug once it is marked > "Fix Released," and would prefer to file a new bug. The designers of > the Apport retracer see matters differently. Are the changes in > status to the old bug the best way to signal that it once again > requires attention? Is there a better way? This is one of the cases where it is difficult to say which would be the best way (and I cannot be precise because you did not give us a link to this particular bug). But the following may help: (a) if a regression (potential or confirmed) is found within a release cycle *and* there is a bug, fixed in this cycle that theoretically addresses it, *then* reopening the bug is a good first approach; (b) if a regression (potential or confirmed) is found on a newer release *and* there is a bug, from a previous release that theoretically fixed this issue, *then* open a _new_ bug (and refer to the previous one in it): it is possible that the package was changed in between, and the regression re-introduced. In your case -- and still with the caveat that I do not know the real issue, package, etc -- I would rather open a new bug (and refer to the old one): the original bug addressed a previous (k)ubuntu release and Kubuntu has been going through many updates, ergo probably re-introduced. I hope this helps. ..C.. p.s. thank you for helping! signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
File a new bug or re-open an old one
I am not an Ubuntu developer; I learn a lot, however, from lurking on this list. If this is not the right forum to raise this issue, I would be grateful for a pointer in a better direction. I use Kubuntu. I have many years experience at breaking development software and of filing bug reports. Efforts to install Kubuntu Lucid Lynx beta1 on an amd64 machine have generated numerous problems, all of which I have tried to document at Launchpad. The focus of this message is one bug which the Apport retracer on Launchpad tagged as a duplicate. The original bug (of which mine was marked duplicate) was originally submitted on 2009-12-14, that is, as Karmic was approaching release. A fix was released the following day, 2009-10-15. I suspect that I may be dealing with a regression. If I do nothing to flag that concern, there would appear to be a risk that the bug would never come to the attention of a developer. I have therefore changed the status of the bug from "Fix Released" to "New." I also deleted the tag "regression-retracer," and substituted the tag "regression-potential." I personally would always hesitate to re-open a bug once it is marked "Fix Released," and would prefer to file a new bug. The designers of the Apport retracer see matters differently. Are the changes in status to the old bug the best way to signal that it once again requires attention? Is there a better way? -- Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 Just when you think your software is idiot proof, somebody comes up with a better idiot Keyboard not found...Press any key to continue. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
