File a new bug or re-open an old one

[C de-Avillez]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Bruce Miller <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, ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com or
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!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20100329/3c00cb1f/attachment.sig>