Answer bottom-posted. -- Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 Just when you think your software is idiot proof, somebody comes up with a better idiot Keyboard not found...Press any key to continue.
----- Original Message ---- > From: C de-Avillez <hgg...@ubuntu.com> > To: Bruce Miller <subscr...@brmiller.ca> > Cc: Ubuntu developer list <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com> > Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 11:36:56 AM > Subject: Re: File a new bug or re-open an old one > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Bruce Miller < > ymailto="mailto:subscr...@brmiller.ca"; > href="mailto:subscr...@brmiller.ca";>subscr...@brmiller.ca> > 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, > ymailto="mailto:ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com"; > href="mailto:ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com";>ubuntu-bugsq...@lists.ubuntu.com > > or > href="mailto:ubuntu-bugcont...@lists.launchpad.net";>ubuntu-bugcont...@lists.launchpad.net > > 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! Thank you for the helpful and thoughtful answer. Thanks also for the pointer to the bug management mailing lists. It was a conscious decision not to name the bugs that I was concerned about. The reasoning was this: Ubuntu allows non-developers, like me, unrestricted access to this mailing list. I learn from lurking here but know that you could close that access any time that non-developers degraded the signal/noise ratio badly. I have seen many "Ubuntu sucks! I'm quitting Ubuntu" rants and the hard feelings they generate. I was worried that a couple of nasty core functionality problems had arisen suddenly --- at least on my two Ubuntu systems --- around the time Beta 1 was released but was determined to try to contribute and not to whinge and whine. I know that the core Ubuntu developers are working their tails off to get Lucid ready for release. That this is going to be a Long Term Support (LTS) release only increases the pressure. Since I posted my first message, it has therefore been gratifying to see how quickly those two specific problems have come to the attention of core developers and --- since I am not a code jockey --- I have learned another technique for helping bring problems to the attention of those who are. For the record, it was Bug 451105 which I reopened and retagged. The other bug which I have been tracking closely now carries four flames of Bug Heat and is also getting lots of developer TLC: Bug 448095. I look forward eagerly to seeing Lucid come out and thank all the developers for their hard work. -- 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
