Old bug reports

[Brian Murray]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:01:23PM +0100, Carl Ansell wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> 
> I saw a bug report earlier that was marked as confirmed in Dapper, and
> fix released or invalid (can't remember which)in Edgy and there was a
> comment stating the issue was fixed in this release. The fix has not
> been backported, so what would be the best practice in this situation?
> 
> 
> In realise that looking at old bugs might not seem like the most
> productive thing to do, but I have only just joined the bugsquad and
> feel that I am still learning about the whole bug reporting and
> triaging process. As such I think this would be a more simple thing to
> start with, given that many bugs have been inactive for years and
> would be less of an issue should I make a mistake.

This is really interesting, thanks for bringing this up.  Personally, I
think working with old bugs will actually teach you less and be less
productive.  Because the bug report is older it is much less likely to
be active - you could set the bug report to Incomplete and never receive
a response.  Additionally, a more recent bug is more likely to receive
comments from other triagers and developments which may teach you
something.  Finally, one of the best ways to learn (for me at least) is
by making mistakes.

So I suggest working with newer bugs if you have any doubts about what
the right thing to do is or how to proceed with a bug please ask your
questions on this mailing list or in #ubuntu-bugs on freenode.

Sincerely,
--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20110824/d051072b/attachment.sig>