On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Bruce Miller <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] or [email protected] are the ideal MLs. <snip/> > 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 [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
