FS#13224 - When reopening a bug, the comment gets the wrong date
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Keld Simonsen (keld) - Thursday, 12 February 2009, 07:33 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Monday, 08 June 2009, 22:37 GMT
Opened by Keld Simonsen (keld) - Thursday, 12 February 2009, 07:33 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Monday, 08 June 2009, 22:37 GMT
|
Details
Description:
I requested reopening of http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12240#comment39267 over a month ago. But it turned up just yesterday, wed 11. feb 2009, with the date of yesterday as the comment submission date. Naturally the fixers were confused, as the problem was resolved automagically in the meantime. My own conclusion: do not reopen a bug, rather report a new bug, as reopening requires moderator intervention. My recommendation: remove reopening from web site functionality. Additional info: * package version(s) * config and/or log files etc. Steps to reproduce: |
This task depends upon
Closed by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka)
Monday, 08 June 2009, 22:37 GMT
Reason for closing: Upstream
Additional comments about closing: see the last comment
Monday, 08 June 2009, 22:37 GMT
Reason for closing: Upstream
Additional comments about closing: see the last comment
As far as the second one, from my experience reopening bugs is needed in some occasions.
And its up to the moderator to open it, so i dont see a reason not having that.
What was done in
FS#12240you link to was a mistake. They dont happen that often.At this moment we're limited to the bugtracker team to reopen bugs. If they don't have time to work on the bugs, reopen requests can be stalled for over a month, resulting in these obsolete reopened bugs.
@JGC - hm, I thought devs get notifications about reopening because flyspray adds user's reopening request as a comment automatically.
Something has to be done with this flyspray bugs....
Assigning it to myself to not forget it.
FS#14596- I reopened it just a minute ago and that's the date/time of comment, not when it was originally requested for reopening.I'm not sure if this behaviour should be considered, but it's definetely should be reported and handled upstream. Closing this.