Bug#215110: apache: Apache upgrade corrupting entries in httpd.conf
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, John Harrison wrote:
> I looked carefully through the very large number (currently 216)
> of bugs which reportbug displayed against Apache, to make sure that I
> was not duplicating someone else's report.
I know it's a bit of a mess but the best way is to check the real BTS
before reporting. Quite often bug titles do not match the real bug.
> By the tone of your email I understand that you didn't appreciate my
> spending an hour of my time today to carefully look through all the
> symptoms I could find, and you didn't appreciate my sending you the
> extra information I had on it.
Yes and again i am sorry for that tone. I meant to write something totally
different.. but i realized only after the crap i wrote on it.
> He also said:
>
> "1.3.28-3 should fix the problem, so I am closing this report."
>
> Well I reported this against 1.3.28-3 - in which is still clearly NOT
> fixed, if it was closed on the grounds that 1.3.28-3 was fixing it,
> then the fix has failed and the bug report should not have been closed.
Yes we expected -3 to fix the problem. this usually happens when there are
too many version floating around at the same time... difficult to avoid.
> Is it better to report a new bug against an existing problem, or to
> reopen a closed report on the same problem ?
It depends. Duplicate reports are not appreciate in terms that they bloat
the BTS and our work as DD to keep track of what is going on. As you have
seen i got confused by wrong attachments to wrong bugs because there were
simply too many. I always suggest to check the BTS against the package
before taking any action or otherwise just check the mailing list since in
our case bugs status are reflected there as well (but with delay).
> I'm sorry if I've wasted my afternoon doing something which is
> "useless" just because the bug reporting system didn't give me any leads
> to a more appropriate place to report what I had found.
NO it is not useless. My reccomndation is still to check the BTS.
/yes i know i am boring :-))
> The fact that "[1.3.28]-4 should be on the way anytime soon." is of no
> relevence to me.
It is relevant to other people reading the reports on the mailinglist.
> As I stated in my report I have already been able to
> work around the fault, so I don't need -4 myself. I'm sure that it will
> have it's own bugs too.
Well my point is that users should not need to workaround. Of course -4
will have its bugs but we expect to be usable by everyone.
Fabio
Reply to: