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

Craig Scott audiofanatic at gmail.com
Wed Apr 4 13:04:37 UTC 2012

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Wichmann, Mats D <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
> wrote:

> On another project there's just been a bit of a debate on how
> to handle bugs that are initially targeted for a certain release,
> then don't make it and are moved out.
> 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 drew howls of protest from some; the argument in favor
> was that this way, better statistics could be generated for
> a particular release: you could then track how many bugs
> had been originally tagged, then not fixed due to lack of
> resources or whatever, if you just move them out you can't
> get visibility into that aspect.
> Without tossing in my own opinion, what do people think
> of this as an approach for LSB?
It's not how bug reports are typically handled in my experience with
versioned releases. A bug usually stays with the same issue ID throughout
its life, regardless of whether it gets pushed to a later version or not.
Creating new bugs to effectively duplicate an existing one seems to just be
generating noise. I can appreciate that creating a new bug for a later
version may allow better statistics, but I'd question how useful such
statistics would actually be (but my interests are likely much narrower
than those of others on this list).

Craig Scott
Melbourne, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20120404/d86673b4/attachment.html>

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list