Launchpad bug retesting

[Stephan Hermann]

Hi Cody,

Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> On 3/20/08, Jonathan Jesse <jjesse at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>   
>> Good morning,
>>
>> How would you suggest doing this instead?  I am one of those that is combing
>> launchpad for bugs that have not been reported or updated for a long time.
>> I try to reproduce the bugs on my own system or vm which I try to run the
>> development branch. If I am unable to reproduce it myself, I always ask the
>> user to try and reproduce it as well.
>> So how would you suggest dealing with those bugs instead of asking the end
>> user to deal with it?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>     
>
> They've already produced the bug if they've reported it. It is
> obviously important to ask if it is reproducible every time but the
> more critical information is determining _how_ to reproduce it. If you
> can't reproduce it on the version they're using, then obviously you
> can't assume it is fixed on the development release because you can't
> reproduce it there. Although, I imagine it would be safe to close the
> bug or ask for them to try and reproduce it if the version of Ubuntu
> that the bug occurred on is no longer supported and you can't
> reproduce the bug in a version that is supported. So, although you
> test, I don't think a lot of people do.
>
> Goals are important here. I don't think the goal should be to close as
> many bugs as possible. I believe the goal is to have as many bugs
> triaged _correctly_ so that they can be dealt with effectively.
>
>   

Well sounds good...but where are the people who are doing the bugfixes?


we can test, reproduce etc. Having for every bug a patch handy and an 
SRU is a lot of paperwork, and those uploads to -proposed won't even 
show up in -updates,
when there is no one who is testing.

So, especially for the voluntary part of Ubuntu, it's quite important 
for the guy/gal who is working on the package, if the bug still exists 
in the latest devel release...so he/she can decide to actually work on 
an SRU or to just go on or to fix it in latest devel release.

The problem here is, as it's always, human-power :)

\sh