On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Isaac Dupree <ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote: >> >> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want >> commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the >> developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what >> a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it >> directly with the developer in question > > Okay, here's my example (of a different reason to comment on a closed bug). > > I found bug #18022 that affected me, http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18022 . > It was marked "closed" with > "Reason for closing: Fixed > Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 + > xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1." > > I requested to re-open, saying that I was running libdrm 2.4.17-4 and > xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1 and it was not fixed with those versions. > > I got an e-mail response from FlySpray saying that the "assigned-to" person > (JGC) denied my request, with the justification being "There's already an > open bug for this." > > I didn't see any obvious polite way to respond ( -- which is a Flyspray > issue. See below for what I did next/why.). Replying in another re-open > request seemed rude. If bug #18022 was a duplicate, I couldn't see anywhere > on the bug that said *which* open bug it was a duplicate of, so I couldn't > go make a comment "there" instead. Also, I searched, and in my judgment no > other bug in bugs.archlinux.org besides #18022 seemed to quite match my > symptoms. Also, I could have opened yet another bug, but that seemed rude. > > (Also, it's an upstream bug, albeit a bug that makes one's machine unusable, > so it isn't even one that I'd submit to Arch. But, the bug existed in > bugs.archlinux.org with inaccurate information that would bother future bug > seekers/reporters, so I wanted it to be marked some way that's accurate, and > would have liked to update it with my progress at reporting the bug > upstream.) > > So I poked around and found JGC's email address according to > bugs.archlinux.org and e-mailed in response (although I didn't get a > response to my e-mail, so I don't know if it got to JGC successfully). > > I wrote to JGC: >> >> (I hope e-mailing your archlinux address is an okay way to reply, since >> your reply to my reopen-request didn't appear anywhere on the Web that I >> could find) >> >> If this bug is a duplicate, can you mark it as such, and say clearly which >> bug it is a duplicate of? >> >> All I want to do is to leave a comment about my progress reporting the bug >> upstream, so that other people who search and find this archlinux bug will >> be less confused... >> >> This text is also a bit confusing given that the described bug is not >> fixed, (nor even affected by upgrading to the mentioned versions) >> " >> Reason for closing: Fixed >> Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 + >> xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1. >> " >> >> thanks? >> -Isaac So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer. Now, if it was difficult to find the email addresses, that's very different and something we SHOULD fix.
