File a new bug or re-open an old one

[Bruce Miller]

Answer bottom-posted.

 --
Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
bruce at brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151
Just when you think your software is idiot proof, somebody comes up with a better idiot
Keyboard not found...Press any key to continue.



----- Original Message ----
> From: C de-Avillez <hggdh2 at ubuntu.com>
> To: Bruce Miller <subscribe at brmiller.ca>
> Cc: Ubuntu developer list <ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 11:36:56 AM
> Subject: Re: File a new bug or re-open an old one
> 
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Bruce Miller <
> ymailto="mailto:subscribe at brmiller.ca" 
> href="mailto:subscribe at brmiller.ca">subscribe at brmiller.ca> 
> wrote:

Hello Bruce, 

> I am not an Ubuntu developer; I learn a 
> lot, however, from lurking on
> this list. If this is not the right forum 
> to raise this issue, I
> would be grateful for a pointer in a better 
> direction.

I would say that you are raising a point that *can* be 
> discussed here.
But usually, for bug management, 
> ymailto="mailto:ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com" 
> href="mailto:ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com 
> or

> href="mailto:ubuntu-bugcontrol at lists.launchpad.net">ubuntu-bugcontrol at lists.launchpad.net 
> are the ideal MLs.

<snip/>  

> The focus of this 
> message is one bug which the Apport retracer on
> Launchpad tagged as a 
> duplicate. The original bug (of which mine was
> marked duplicate) was 
> originally submitted on 2009-12-14, that is, as
> Karmic was approaching 
> release. A fix was released the following day,
> 2009-10-15.
> 
> 
> I suspect that I may be dealing with a regression. If I do nothing 
> to
> flag that concern, there would appear to be a risk that the bug 
> would
> never come to the attention of a developer.
> 
> I 
> have therefore changed the status of the bug from "Fix Released" to
> 
> "New." I also deleted the tag "regression-retracer," and substituted
> the 
> tag "regression-potential."

Notwithstanding anything else (see below), 
> tagging it
'regression-potential' is absolutely correct.

> I 
> personally would always hesitate to re-open a bug once it is marked
> "Fix 
> Released," and would prefer to file a new bug. The designers of
> the 
> Apport retracer see matters differently. Are the changes in
> status to 
> the old bug the best way to signal that it once again
> requires 
> attention? Is there a better way?

This is one of the cases where it is 
> difficult to say which would be
the best way (and I cannot be precise because 
> you did not give us a
link to this particular bug). But the following may 
> help:

(a) if a regression (potential or confirmed) is found within a 
> release
cycle *and* there is a bug, fixed in this cycle that 
> theoretically
addresses it, *then* reopening the bug is a good first 
> approach;

(b) if a regression (potential or confirmed) is found on a 
> newer
release *and* there is a bug, from a previous release 
> that
theoretically fixed this issue, *then* open a _new_ bug (and refer 
> to
the previous one in it): it is possible that the package was changed 
> in
between, and the regression re-introduced.

In your case -- and 
> still with the caveat that I do not know the real
issue, package, etc -- I 
> would rather open a new bug (and refer to the
old one): the original bug 
> addressed a previous (k)ubuntu release and
Kubuntu has been going through 
> many updates, ergo probably
re-introduced.

I hope this 
> helps.

..C..

>p.s. thank you for helping!

Thank you for the helpful and thoughtful answer. Thanks also for the pointer to the bug management mailing lists.

It was a conscious decision not to name the bugs that I was concerned about. The reasoning was this:
Ubuntu allows non-developers, like me, unrestricted access to this mailing list. I learn from lurking here but know that you could close that access any time that non-developers degraded the signal/noise ratio badly. I have seen many "Ubuntu sucks! I'm quitting Ubuntu" rants and the hard feelings they generate. I was worried that a couple of nasty core functionality problems had arisen suddenly --- at least on my two Ubuntu systems --- around the time Beta 1 was released but was determined to try to contribute and not to whinge and whine. 

I know that the core Ubuntu developers are working their tails off to get Lucid ready for release. That this is going to be a Long Term Support (LTS) release only increases the pressure. Since I posted my first message, it has therefore been gratifying to see how quickly those two specific problems have come to the attention of core developers and --- since I am not a code jockey --- I have learned another technique for helping bring problems to the attention of those who are.

For the record, it was Bug 451105 which I reopened and retagged. The other bug which I have been tracking closely now carries four flames of Bug Heat and is also getting lots of developer TLC: Bug 448095.

I look forward eagerly to seeing Lucid come out and thank all the developers for their hard work.