I'd like to make a comment real quick about the handling of bugs in general. IMHO, if you ask if the bug still exists in a newer (yet to be released, even) version of Ubuntu, and that's all you say, you should not mark the bug as incomplete. Marking it as incomplete will cause it to be marked Invalid in 60 days if no one responds, but the bug will still exist. So instead of being noticed and perhaps fixed, it will fade away. That's not a good solution.
Basically, it doesn't matter if it is reproducible in Intrepid, because even if it's not, the bug still needs to be fixed in Hardy, as long as Hardy is still supported. Now maybe a newer, bugless version could be backported to Hardy, but if so, that needs to be done. Marking the bug as Incomplete doesn't accomplish that; it makes it more likely that it won't happen. I think Ubuntu should take a page from Debian's bug handling. Debian does not frivolously dismiss bugs, even if they are minor. If the bug still exists, it's still in the list of bugs. Sometimes they even sit there for a year or two if no one bothers to fix them, and sometimes they get fixed after a long time. But even if no one fixes a bug, they don't hide the bug just because no one's responded in a while. On top of all that, people who care about a bug (like me) have to watch it carefully and prevent it from being marked Incomplete, which is a waste of my time. So please, don't mark bugs as Incomplete unless it's really the right thing to do. -- When last stream on list has empty description, it won't be loaded (after program restart) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/112498 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
