ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Micah Gersten <micahg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/05/2012 08:14 PM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:10:34 +0100
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>   Some questions on when to mark bugs as being in End-of-life 
>> versions:
>>
>>   * Hardy is still supported until 2013 - but as I read it for
>> 'server'
>>     - does that mean any Hardy bug that's definitely non-server
>> relavent can be closed?
> If it does not happen in a supported version, certainly. Now, Hardy is
> quite old (but still supported for the server), so it is highly
> probable that the code base has changed so much that any bugs there
> might not be code-compatible anymore.
>
>>     * OK, so what is the definition of 'server' - I mean some stuff
>>       is obvious (nfs-stuff -> server, game client->not server); but
>>       what about bits of desktop stuff - do we include basic desktop
>>       in our definition of server?
> No, desktop bits are not supported. Rule of thumb: if it is in the ISO,
> then certainly is supported. Otherwise, if it is a typical server
> application, it is supported.
Any server type application that meets the SRU criteria would probably
still be accepted for hardy.

>>   * What about bugs relating to upgrades to Hardy, e.g.
>>      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/273795
>>
>>      (which probably has other reasons to be closed, but anyway)
>>      It's a bug about an upgrade to Hardy, but in glibc, is it still
>>      supported to upgrade an older system to Hardy? (I doubt there
>>      are any...)
> I am not sure here. But it stands to reason that upgrading to Hardy
> would not be supported.
>
Hardy upgrades from Dapper would still probably be considered
"supported" since it's the only in-archive upgrade path to more recent
versions.  I would think anyone upgrading from gutsy would've done so
long ago.  In any event, that bug is very old and looks like it wasn't
related to glibc at all, but to bad hardware as noted in the comments. 
Since the hardy archive is still open, in theory if someone wanted to
fix the upgrade path for an application from LTS -> LTS (6.06 -> 8.04),
this might be accepted as well.  Since hardy only has about 8 months of
life left, unless someone provides a patch, it's unlikely resources
would be devoted to fixing such issues.  Still, if the bug is SRU
worthy, it wouldn't be proper to close in case someone has an itch
they're willing to scratch.

So to summarize, IMHO, the acceptable bugs at this point are:
1. Bugs in any server related application that meet SRU criteria [1]
2. Bad upgrade experience from dapper(probably)/gutsy(maybe) to hardy
preventing upgrading to lucid or causing data loss (even non-server related)


Thanks,
Micah

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#When