Modifying a bug's description

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 07:00, markus korn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Brian Murray <brian at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > Bug descriptions are something that do not get modified very often,
> > approximately 240 times this month, but are a great way to make bug
> > reports more useful.  They can also save everyone the pain of having to
> > read through every bug comment to extract important information.
> >
> > I put some thought into a few items[0] that would be beneficial to have
> > in the bug description.  This includes a 'test case' section which is
> > currently being used for the Stable Release Update verification process
> > with great success.  What other information could we be adding to the
> > bug description to make it more useful?
> >
> > [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Description
> >
> > --
> > Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com
>
> I understand why it is useful to modify the description of a
> bugreport: because it is the only possibility launchpad provides us to
> show important facts to users/developers/triagers in the very first
> place.
>
> But my opinion here is: Nobody should ever change the description of a
> bugreport!
> The reporter indicates with his name that he wrote the description, so
> he is kind of responsible  for facts mentioned in the description. I
> think that's the reason why no one can change comments, because each
> comment reflects the opinion of its author.
>
> Instead of this we should ask the launchpad-devs to implement
> something like a whitebox section for each bugreport, or a different
> solution. I understand that such a solution would take some time. In
> the meantime, part of the 'changing descriptions'-policy should always
> be a a clear indication like "<user xxx>: added testcase".
>
> Markus

There is a link to the original description if it has been changed, so nothing 
is lost.  The purpose and status of a bug changes over time and the current 
description should suit the current situation.  Keeping obsolete information 
in the first place a developer looks when trying to understand a bug is not 
helpful.  

Personally, I'd appreciate it if there were rather more editing than less.  
This is particularly true on bugs with lots of comments and history.

Scott K