On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:00, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote on 20/08/08 15:34: > > On Wednesday 20 August 2008 10:31, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > >... > > > >>> So, if there is no suitable bug state existing already we need a new > >>> state for these kinds of bugs. We can call it "watching", or > >>> "insufficient information", or "can not reproduce", or whatever. > >> > >> That state already exists: it's called "Incomplete". > > > > Right, but given the current plans for auto expiration, at some point > > the difference between Incomplete and Invalid will be only a certain > > number of days, so in the end it amounts to the same thing. > >... > > Sure. A bug tracker exists to help developers improve software. So when > a bug report is "Invalid", it's not because nobody ever experienced the > bug, it's because the report isn't useful in helping developers improve > the software. (Maybe "Invalid" is not the kindest word for this, but > that's a tangential issue.) > > "Incomplete" is a warning that the report isn't useful in its current > state, and will soon be treated accordingly unless it's made more useful. > That is certainly that is 'a' purpose, but not the only one. Understanding the state of a package or distro is another purpose.
By marking incomplete backtrace crash bugs invalid we lose information both about circumstances of crashes and frequency. A bug with 50 dupes and one good backtrace is different than one with no dupes. Reading the dictionary definition of 'invalid', I don't think it's correct. These are real bugs that we choose to hide. Scott K -- 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
