ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Sense Hofstede <sense@xxxxxxxx>]

2009/12/10 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
> Post to     : ubuntu-bugcontrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
Sounds sane to me and it is probably already being done most of the
time. I see no use in opening a new bug for the same issue because the
original reporter stopped replying.

However, it's a bit of a grey zone when the original reporter stopped
replying and other people 'hijacked' the bug report by all talking
about a (slightly) different issue. Should we convert the bug to the
new subject and close the bug asking the original reporter to reopen
the bug in case he/she is willing to provide more information about
the issue, or should we adapt the bug to reflect the current problem
that's being talked about?

>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.
This indeed is the guideline I always use and is already the official
policy, if I'm correct.

Regards,
-- 
Sense Hofstede
/ˈsen.sɜː ˈhɒf.steɪdɜː/