... continued from Bug #516219: > lelamal: The point is that bug #422393 was an old bug that was already marked > as Fix Released when you encountered the issue. I have encountered fixed bugs that get confirmed and reopened, if users report that the bug is reoccurring, without them being asked to report new bugs when they submit evidence that might prove the fix did not work.
> You were asked to open a new bug so Apport would upload all the log files and > backtraces to Launchpad, allowing us to compare the difference. I see. Then, this makes me wonder: why does Apport even ask to submit the required information to the developers as first thing after the crash, if when you afterwards land on an existing bug such information is not checked nor stored? Both in comment #10 and #11 of bug #422393 I explain I submitted the necessary information - did anybody read them before ruling out the possibility that the issue was reoccurring? Do the information get stored somewhere at all? Otherwise, if all the log files and backtraces submitted to Launchpad get trashed, would it not make more sense if Apport checked the existing bugs FIRST, and then, as a second phase, asked users if they want to submit their data? Since reports range from a couple of KiB to hundreds of MB, would that not be more reasonable, especially for those users who have limited bandwidth and yet care to participate in making Ubuntu better? > Now there is a new bug report open with the debug information attached we > have enough information to go to the next step in the process and verify > whether the old bug returned, or whether you're reporting something new. Good. Still, if Apport really works the other way around, and uploaded data are inexplicably destroyed, I could have re-uploaded the necessary information in the relevant bug as I have seen users doing many times. I understand opening a new bug might be an easier route, yet, considering my first report last November, the whole process is really time consuming. Retaining submitted data could have provided debug material for the developers to work on already 3 months ago. -- nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/515495 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
