On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Geoffroy Carrier <geoffroy.carrier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 17:23, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the >> original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads >> the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem. > > I'd agree with that. > A bug can be closed because it is upstream and have workarounds, and > people that will search about this bug will end on the bug report, so > workarounds belong here IMHO. In my opinion, bugs should not be closed in this case. The arch bug report should contain links to the upstream bug, to track its status. The arch bug report should only be closed when a patch from upstream has been applied to the arch package, or a new upstream version has been released and has been packaged in arch. The only case where it makes really sense to close it is when the bug is seen as invalid by upstream and is never going to be fixed. > A bug can be closed and happen again, it would be bureaucratic to > report the same bug again. That is exactly why you can re-open a bug.. > A bug can be fixed by a method that limits some features, but could be > fixed by another which wouldn't have those limitations. Mailing the > maintainer means that it will only be widely available once the > maintainer made the change. Then providing the alternative method via > a comment on the bug report seems a good way IMHO, as everyone can try > it ASAP. > etc. > Looks like we are going to special cases now, so really not so important. For these special cases, it seems good enough to just open a new bug / feature request or to simply contact the maintainer.
