Comment 6 for bug 622973

> Dennis, this was marked as Triaged, sent upstream and if you look at the upstream report the developers are working on it, so why [are you] marking it as a duplicate of a non triaged one? [T]hat doesn't make sense[,] please do not do it. The other bugs should be marked as a duplicate of this one. [D]oing that now. [T]hanks all.

I'm sorry, I did not realize that what made sense was for you to create a new bug report when two earlier ones existed. With the original report having a full backtrace with debug symbols before your third report was created. I did not know that it made sense to instead make a redundant third bug report, triage that and send that one upstream, and that people should somehow intuit that this was now the report that earlier bugs should be made a duplicate of. I had been under the impression that the earliest bug report would be the one later bug reports would be made duplicates of. I was under the impression that when a bug report with full backtraces with debug symbols exists, that you do not make a redundant bug report and decide to triage that one and send that one upstream.

I can not find reference to your system of bug reporting in Ubuntu's documentation, could you kindly point me to where it is referenced? If it is not there, could you please update Ubuntu's documentation with regards to your system of bug reporting, because you are right, I can not make sense of it.