Launchpad itself

Bug #160872
Comment #3

Comment 3 for bug 160872

Revision history for this message

Grondr (grondr) wrote on 2007-11-08:

Aargh! And, having closed the window in which I reported -this- problem, I couldn't even locate it again without finding it via the email I just got, since of course somebody invalidated this bug report and it failed to show up in my search. How enormously irritating! I mean, geez, invalid or not, the person who FILED it should be able to FIND it again, right? And commenters, etc? Making it vanish by default is pretty rude.

So is there any way to search for bugs that ARE marked invalid? Otherwise, I'm going to have to grep through my old mail to find other bug reports just to check them, and that's way more work than I'm willing to do.

Also: As far as I can tell, I never received any mail when this bug was invalidated (I just rechecked---I was absolutely subscribed to the bug, so shouldn't I have been informed upon the state change?), -and- I cannot find out WHO invalidated it, nor WHY (no comment to that effect---unless "rejected" by Ben Collins on 12 Jun 06 automatically marked it as "invalid", in which case it'd sure be nice if the terminology could be made consistent), -and- people are still commenting on it (most recently in August of this year to report that it's still broken in Edgy and Fiesty), -and- it's STILL broken in Gutsy (I just checked, and that's why I was trying to find this bug to comment on it). How did the people who commented on it recently manage to find it? And should one of them taken it upon themselves to change its state back to something that wasn't invalid? (They may not even have noticed---I sure didn't. That field is easy to miss if you're not looking for it, and it's in -gray-, which makes it just fade away on the screen...)

I'm currently trying to decide whether to reopen it (and maybe try to mark #160413 as a duplicate), or just leave it closed and file a brand-new bug, since this unfixed problem is now TWO YEARS OLD and the fact that it claims to be in linux-source-2.6.10 is probably misleading people into thinking that it's already fixed somehow in a later release. (And I have information on a workaround, which might lead to what's going wrong, but I'm not going to bother filing it for a bug that nobody's going to see, since the point is to get it fixed, not vanished down a black hole somewhere.)

Thanks...

Aargh!  And, having closed the window in which I reported -this- problem, I couldn't even locate it again without finding it via the email I just got, since of course somebody invalidated this bug report and it failed to show up in my search.  How enormously irritating!  I mean, geez, invalid or not, the person who FILED it should be able to FIND it again, right?  And commenters, etc?  Making it vanish by default is pretty rude.

So is there any way to search for bugs that ARE marked invalid?  Otherwise, I'm going to have to grep through my old mail to find other bug reports just to check them, and that's way more work than I'm willing to do.

Also:  As far as I can tell, I never received any mail when this bug was invalidated (I just rechecked---I was absolutely subscribed to the bug, so shouldn't I have been informed upon the state change?), -and- I cannot find out WHO invalidated it, nor WHY (no comment to that effect---unless "rejected" by Ben Collins on 12 Jun 06 automatically marked it as "invalid", in which case it'd sure be nice if the terminology could be made consistent), -and- people are still commenting on it (most recently in August of this year to report that it's still broken in Edgy and Fiesty), -and- it's STILL broken in Gutsy (I just checked, and that's why I was trying to find this bug to comment on it).  How did the people who commented on it recently manage to find it?  And should one of them taken it upon themselves to change its state back to something that wasn't invalid?  (They may not even have noticed---I sure didn't.  That field is easy to miss if you're not looking for it, and it's in -gray-, which makes it just fade away on the screen...)

I'm currently trying to decide whether to reopen it (and maybe try to mark #160413 as a duplicate), or just leave it closed and file a brand-new bug, since this unfixed problem is now TWO YEARS OLD and the fact that it claims to be in linux-source-2.6.10 is probably misleading people into thinking that it's already fixed somehow in a later release.  (And I have information on a workaround, which might lead to what's going wrong, but I'm not going to bother filing it for a bug that nobody's going to see, since the point is to get it fixed, not vanished down a black hole somewhere.)

Thanks...