On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:42:01 +0100 "Caroline Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >2008/8/20 Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> But there are also many crash reports where the retracers fail and we >> dont have any testcase. You want those to stay open as well? > >But what do we do with these then? They are still bugs, and with some >crashes we never seem to get a backtrace with symbols. > >Currently we just close them and hope they go away..
Personally, I think closing them after some period if similar crashes stop coming is reasonable. For me I think the period should be rather long (like most of a development cycle) unless there is reason to think something's actually been fixed. There are a wide range of styles project can using for managing their bug database. I've worked on projects that never closed bugs that they couldn't tie to a specific fix. I worked for another one that had a bug status called OTO for One Time Only. This was treated as very close to closed, but was actively checked for dupes. I recall another where the project manager routinely ordered bugs to be closed (because he'd told someone it was fixed) without reference to the state of the code base. That one did not end well. I think we have veered to far in the direction of closing bugs. It's almost as if someone, in homage to Emporer Joseph II in Amadeus said, "There are simply too many bugs". I'd probably find it more useful if bug triagers invested more time in trying to reproduce bugs and get them to Triaged and less of finding ones they might close. 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
