Many bugs reported turn out to be "hit and run" reports where something is filed and never followed up. As such it is good that bugs are aggressively closed where possibly to prevent launchpad cluttering up. Unfortunately there are scenarios where this becomes problematic.
These days I see people romping through launchpad asking for bugs to be retested on pre-releases of Ubuntu (which may be months away from their final release). These bugs are stuffed into a Incomplete state and then one month later closed (due to lack of response) before the final release of Ubuntu is ever released. Sometimes these are bugs with very thorough descriptions which are reproducible all the time so there is nothing stopping the launchpad gardener checking the problem. A flip side of this is that sometimes a bug is reported and again at some point before the next major release a request for testing is put out. The reporter goes away, tries the pre-release and tests the bug and reports back. Then another request to test another pre-release comes up because "maybe it's been fixed" but without any firm reason for this other than a minor point release change. Thus the bug is turned into a game of how many pre-releases the reporter can keep up with. The problem with all these requests for retesting is that the more bugs someone files the more retests they will be asked to do thus punishing those who file real bugs that are not resolved. In order to keep bugs.launchpad.net manageable perhaps collateral damage is inevitable but if you are expecting people to be repeatedly testing things every month (or see their bug closed) then it would be nice if this was stated up front. -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- 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
