Re: unreproducable, but grave bug
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 08:23:19AM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> How do you tell the difference between a non-real bug and an
> non-reproducible bug? I suspect all non-real bugs are non-reproducible
> (please, no math jokes), and "most" non-reproducible bugs are non-real.
> Never closing a non-reproducible bug would cause a great accumulation of
> bugs, changing the BTS from a package problem tracker, to a individual
> machine's hardware problem tracker, reducing it's usefulness for it's
> intended purpose.
Putting it back into context, the bug that was closed was apparently
done so prematurely, without careful consideration or time allowed to
make the above determination.
I don't think anyone who has thought it through carefully is going to
agree that all non-reproducible bugs should remain in the system
indefinitely. But clearly some process needs to be followed for
eventual removal of these bugs from the system rather than just a
knee-jerk closing of a not thoroughly investigated unreproducible bug.
To tell the truth, as many packages as I have, I have never encountered
a non-reproducible bug in any of them, so I challenge your assertion
that leaving them in the system "would cause a great accumulation of
bugs". I think leaving each unreproducible bug that isn't "obviously
non-real" (which is at the developer's discretion, and usually means the
developer has a plausible alternative explanation) on record even for a
period of several months isn't going to cause a truly appreciable
increase in the number of bugs in the system. And in the end, if the
bug is real, it is likely that more evidence will crop up in the form of
additional bug reports.
nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca firstname.lastname@example.org
Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
[ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
[ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]