That need to close bugs?

[Reinhard Tartler]

"Fergal Daly" <fergal at esatclear.ie> writes:

> On 12/09/2007, Onno Benschop <onno at itmaze.com.au> wrote:
>>    2. While Dapper isn't the bleeding edge of Ubuntu, code that exists
>>       in Dapper exists in Feisty and Gutsy today. That implies that bugs
>>       that exist in Dapper are also likely to exist. Disk space is
>>       cheap. A computer is great at searching stuff. Leave the bug in
>>       the system, leave it open so others can stumble upon it and not
>>       feel that they are the first to experience this problem. Debugging
>>       is as much about writing code as it is about the "ah-ha" moment in
>>       which someone determines the cause of the problem.
>
> What is the rationale behind skipping closed bugs in a search? I've
> been burned by this in the past.
>
> I can understand why the QA guys or the even developers would want
> this but for a user, who is actually making the effort to not only
> report a bug but to search for dups first, why would they want to
> ignore closed bugs? Closed bugs often contain exactly what that user
> needs - a workaround or a timeline for the fix to be released,

I think this is a very interesting question. Are there any (publicy
viewable) specs which explain the various use cases for querying bugs?

If the default bug listing wouldn't skip bugs with states 'wontfix' and
'invalid', (I think) there would be fewer temptation to overagressively
set a bug from 'incomplete' to 'invalid'.

(and btw, If the bug listing was configurable per user, I'd probably
even skip 'incomplete' bugs by default for myself. However I agree that
this should not be the default).

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4