Debian Bug report logs - #103803
[service.in] Allow reopen to unarchive archived bugs

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Colin Watson <cjw44@flatline.org.uk>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: bugs.debian.org: Can't do anything to archived bug reports

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:34:38 +0100

Package: bugs.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi,

I recently tried to send a message to an archived bug report (#90208),
and the message was cc'ed to control@bugs with a command to reopen the
report. This had two effects:

  * I got an "Unknown problem report" message in response to my mail to
    90208@bugs.debian.org;
  * The control bot said "Bug number 90208 not found".

I ended up filing a new bug report instead.

The "Unknown problem report" message said: "This may be because that Bug
report has been resolved for more than 28 days, and the record of it has
been expunged" - except that this isn't true in this case, as it's been
archived instead. The BTS should check in the archive as well as the
current database when processing mail to bugs and to the control bot,
and move bugs back out of the archive as appropriate.

Thanks,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Message #10 received at 103803-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>

To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org

Cc: 103803-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:53:15 +0100

On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 05:27:25PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I am trying to reopen a bug, tag it and merge it with a more recent one.
> > This is the answer I get from the BTS:
> [...]
> > I guess it's older than 28 days, but... can't I access it anymore?
> 
> Unfortunately not, although the BTS administrators seem to consider this
> a feature request rather than a bug report. See #103803.

That's primarily because it's worked like this for years, and because people
shouldn't ever need this as the bugs shouldn't get wrongly closed and then
neglected for a month. Theoretically, bugs shouldn't reappear in newer
releases of software, too :)

Besides, then we'd have to adjust the age of the bug, and then we'd have a
discrepancy between the dates on the logged e-mails and that time counter.

Not to mention the mess this would cause with merged bugs, which are already
badly handled in some cases (reopening causes all submitters to merge, or
something like that; it's been filed).

And because it requires work to implement it, of course ;)

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Message #19 received at 103803@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>

To: 103803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:34:08 +0100

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:53:15AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> That's primarily because it's worked like this for years, and because
> people shouldn't ever need this as the bugs shouldn't get wrongly
> closed and then neglected for a month. Theoretically, bugs shouldn't
> reappear in newer releases of software, too :)

Heh :)

> Besides, then we'd have to adjust the age of the bug, and then we'd
> have a discrepancy between the dates on the logged e-mails and that
> time counter.

Well, that'd be OK - you'd have a reopen mail with a recent date. (Since
my original report I realize that it wouldn't be a good idea to let any
random mail unarchive a bug, since then spam would be able to unarchive
bugs, which would be very bad. Control messages should still be safe
though.)

> Not to mention the mess this would cause with merged bugs, which are
> already badly handled in some cases (reopening causes all submitters
> to merge, or something like that; it's been filed).

scripts/expire already handles that, though, so we'd just need to move
bits of that out into a library. Maybe.

The main thing that concerns me is that it'd require adding an
'unarchive' record type to debbugs.trace. How feasible is that? doogie?

> And because it requires work to implement it, of course ;)

Yeah :) Since I do still think it'd be a worthwhile thing to support in
some form, I'd be prepared to put some time into it.

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Message #24 received at 103803@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Heath <adam@doogie.org>

To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>, <103803@bugs.debian.org>

Cc: "Darren O. Benham and others" <owner@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#103803: [BTS] Bug number $bug not found.

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:59:13 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Colin Watson wrote:

> scripts/expire already handles that, though, so we'd just need to move
> bits of that out into a library. Maybe.
>
> The main thing that concerns me is that it'd require adding an
> 'unarchive' record type to debbugs.trace. How feasible is that? doogie?

                                $bugs{ $2 } = 1 if ( m/^[+](new|change|archive) (\d+)$/ );

However, there may be other side affects with adding a new bug state change.
The above bit of code is really not concerned with the state change type; it
just wants the numbers.  But other parts of the code check the various fields
for age, status, etc, to see whether it was new or whatnot.

> > And because it requires work to implement it, of course ;)
>
> Yeah :) Since I do still think it'd be a worthwhile thing to support in
> some form, I'd be prepared to put some time into it.

Modifying service should be quite straight forward.  Just copy the files from
archive/ to db-h/, then appendlog().  Modifying makeindex.pl is a tad more
difficult.

Anthony's index scripts shouldn't care.

Message #31 received at 103803@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Helge Kreutzmann <kreutzm@itp.uni-hannover.de>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <103803@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: bugs.debian.org: At least replace "not found" with "not found or archieved"

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:54:38 +0100

Package: bugs.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2004-11-04
Followup-For: Bug #103803

I got a similar reply:
> reopen 244011
Bug number 244011 not found.

> tags 244011  + sarge
Bug number 244011 not found.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Obviously the bug did exists (and still exists in Sarge), I can
clearly find it using the web interface. If reopening it is not
possible, then the "not found" bit should be replaced by "not found or
already archived (manipulation no longer possible)"



-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux pleione 2.4.26-grsec #1 Tue Aug 10 15:42:40 CEST 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US

Message #36 received at 103803@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org>

To: 103803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [PATCH] archived bugs not found.

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:12:20 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Tags: patch

Dear debbugs maintainers,

I spent half an hour before understanding that the bug I was trying to
usertag was "not found" by the BTS because it was archived. This is
difficult to figure out, because other archived bugs are found without a
problem.

I found this bug report, and I agree with Helge that it would be helpful
to change the error message. In the sources of debbugs (apt-get source
debbugs), I could not figure out wether it was debbugs-service or
scripts/service.in which has to be modified, so I prepared a patch for
each of them.

I hope it can help to solve this problem.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wako, Saitama, Japan

[debbugs-service.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

[service.in.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #39 received at 103803@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>

To: 103803@bugs.debian.org, debian-debbugs@lists.debian.org

Subject: Allowing reopen to unarchive archived bugs

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:28:32 -0700

Is there any objection to changing reopen so that it can also
unarchive archived bugs? [I suppose this could be made a configuration
option too.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Tell me something interesting about yourself.
Lie if you have to.
 -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #46 received at 103803@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: debian-debbugs@lists.debian.org, 103803@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Allowing reopen to unarchive archived bugs

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:03:13 -0700

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Is there any objection to changing reopen so that it can also
> unarchive archived bugs? [I suppose this could be made a configuration
> option too.]

From talking to Colin:

1) Add unarchive which will do this
2) Add archive which will reverse unarchive, subject to:
 1) the bug satisfied the normal archive requirements minus the time one; 
 2) had previously been archived

 
This requires archiving to be fixed. [On my to do list.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
"There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user
off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their
REAL earnings to the IRS."
 -- The B.O.F.H..

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.