Backtracing, Invalidated Bugs and Quality

Matthew Paul Thomas mpt at canonical.com
Wed Aug 20 15:31:51 BST 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Smith wrote on 20/08/08 15:20:
>...
> On the other hand I do think it's worthwhile to somehow mark bugs which
> are not sufficiently documented as to be reproducible/fixable.
>...
> So, if there is no suitable bug state existing already we need a new
> state for these kinds of bugs.  We can call it "watching", or
> "insufficient information", or "can not reproduce", or whatever.

That state already exists: it's called "Incomplete".

>                                                                   But
> it should not be "invalid"... or at least not have the current behavior
> of invalid, where once the bug is marked that way it, and all dups of
> it, drop off the edge of the world.
>...

It is an error to mark a valid bug report as a duplicate of an Invalid
one. If apport is doing that, please report a bug about apport.

Cheers
- --
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIrCrX6PUxNfU6ecoRAgNlAJ473JF7HNezUxcx3l5FY80b4QMTIACdGkPp
yTDROCzW/leinjEJnSbtuW8=
=PvY0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list