On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:39:40AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:42:31 +1000 "Null Ack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Evening Devs, > > > >Tonight I was doing some of my test suite and I had the > >tracker-preferences crash unexpectedly doing routine workflow with > >viewing (not changing) preferences. Apport came through and I ended up > >at an invalid existing bug from 2007 because the user had not > >submitted debugging symbols. This has happened to me before and my > >mind has been busy since with thinking about how this detracts from > >quality and what to do about it. These are real bugs, some of them are > >in production, that are not being fixed. > > I think this is important. It seems to me that marking bugs invalid > because they don't have enough information to fix them detracts from having > a good understanding of the state of our system.
I am not sure about what kind of crash bugs you are talking. Do those have a proper symbolized backtrace? If so, they should definitly stay open ... unless we have indications that the bug might be fixed (e.g. no duplicates for ages on a frequently used package paired with a missing testcase). 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? > > Crashes are particularly problematic since duplicates of invalid bugs do > not show in the default search results. This means that if apport rightly > dupes to a bug marked invalid, it can automatically become essentially > invisible. Thats a bug in the apport service. IMO an invalid crash report should be reopened (somehow) if it receives a new duplicate. However, given the judgement above, I dont see why good backtraces would go to invalid state at all. - Alexander -- 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
