[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