ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[C de-Avillez <hggdh2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature