On 2022-04-19 12:38:24 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 19.04.2022 11:51, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > .. > > Since there is no way to know whether there was any fix (or even > > any change that would make the issue disappear as a side effect), > > let's rather tag the bug as unreproducible. > > Hi Vincent! > > Out of curiocity, what do you expect this bug staying like this > to give us? Even you, as you report, were seeing the problem for > only 20 minutes after which it disappeared, and it was quite some > time ago, with a log has changed since that. > > I for one don't know what a maintainer has to do with this bug.
Note that I've let the bug closed since it is not clear that the issue will occur again. But it is always better to ensure that the bug metadata are meaningful in case the issue reappears. This is what I've done. A bug should be marked as fixed only if something was done to change the behavior (with the goal to fix the bug) or it was tested that the bug was reproducible with the old version but not with the new version. > Should it be closed after being marked "unreproducible" > for some time maybe? The bug is currently closed. So there's nothing to be done. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
