[lsb-discuss] LSB bug processing (policy) question

Dallman, John john.dallman at siemens.com
Wed Apr 4 13:02:41 UTC 2012

> It was proposed that such bugs be cloned with the new bug
> marked as targeted to the next release and the old bug
> closed as WONTFIX.

This approach is excellent for people who are working with the bugs-as-bugs,
but terrible for people who are acting as customers, and whose interest is
in getting specific things fixed.

As a customer, keeping track of which bugs are your new bugs always gets
muddled up, unless the bug tracker system completely automates the process,
and *always* provides forwards references to the new bugs. This needs to be
aggressively helpful, because people get stuck on their old bug numbers, and
lose references to the new ones.

A similar practice that Apple engages in: if you report a bug that Apple
considers to be a duplicate of one they already have, your bug is immediately
closed as a duplicate. You are given the number of the bug it duplicates, but
you can't use this to get any information, not even "has it been fixed?" This
is infinitely unhelpful.

John Dallman

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list