2009/12/10 C de-Avillez <[email protected]>: > David Henningsson wrote: >> Marc Randolph wrote: >>> >>> I suppose an alternative could be that we could ask one of the other >>> commenters to open a new bug report, and then >> >> ...mark the old as duplicate of the new one, that would fix some of >> the issues you mentioned, but it still just feel like unnecessary >> administration. > > I agree. Not worth the hassle. We already have a bug about the issue. I > also think we are putting too much importance on the OR being, or not > being, active in the bug. > >> >> Anyway, perhaps the case wasn't as simple as I first thought. We can >> lose the original reporter in more than one point. >> >> It could be that I suggest a workaround but the bug is still there, it >> could be that someone else verifies that the bug is present in the >> current version but not in the development version, it could be that >> the original reporter configured something wrong, etc. > > Well, a workaround does not resolve an issue, just bypasses it. So the > bug is still live. This workaround should be documented as shown in [1] > below. > > If someone notes the issue exists in current version, but not on > development... then: > > 1. the bug is still alive; > 2. a note could be added to the description (in the spirit of [1]) > 3. if possible, find & link the upstream bug > 4. set the bug to Triaged. >> >> My question could then be rephrased as: Given that we lost the >> original reporter (as in no reply for more than 4 weeks), should we >> just go for what the other people say? > > Generically stating, if the OR does not respond anymore, but other > commenters state having the same issue, then we keep on working on the > bug. It is, after all, alive. We should only consider a bug for INVALID > if there is *NO* response from anyone. > > Hope it helps, > > ..C.. > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Description > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > Sounds sane to me and it is probably already being done most of the time. I see no use in opening a new bug for the same issue because the original reporter stopped replying.
However, it's a bit of a grey zone when the original reporter stopped replying and other people 'hijacked' the bug report by all talking about a (slightly) different issue. Should we convert the bug to the new subject and close the bug asking the original reporter to reopen the bug in case he/she is willing to provide more information about the issue, or should we adapt the bug to reflect the current problem that's being talked about? >Generically stating, if the OR does not respond anymore, but other >commenters state having the same issue, then we keep on working on the >bug. It is, after all, alive. We should only consider a bug for INVALID >if there is *NO* response from anyone. This indeed is the guideline I always use and is already the official policy, if I'm correct. Regards, -- Sense Hofstede /ˈsen.sɜː ˈhɒf.steɪdɜː/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
