Re: [Audacity-quality] renaming bugs

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

I think it's hard to make a general rule about that. If it's just a
little problem, closely related to the original, I'd think it usually
better to just keep the bug open at original name, possibly decrementing
priority (but noting the original priority!), until all the niggles are
fixed.

Thanks,
V


On 8/20/2012 3:15 PM, Steve the Fiddle wrote:
> In the case of a bug being partly fixed, would it be better to close
> that bug and raise a new one (with a note pointing to the other bug
> report). That may be help in reducing the number of excessively long
> bug trails.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On 20 August 2012 22:22, Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> wrote:
>> I'm generally opposed to renaming (and reprioritizing) bugs, as it loses
>> track of what the original problem was. For bug 571, e.g., it was
>> renamed twice, and I don't think there's now any record in the Bugzilla
>> entry of what the original bug was. That makes much of the original and
>> subsequent comments in the thread not make much sense.
>>
>> I suggest that whenever a bug is renamed or reprioritized (usually
>> because it's been partly fixed and something else or ancillary shows
>> up), *please* add a comment with the original name and priority, and why
>> it's being renamed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vaughan
>>