ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Daniel Letzeisen <dtl131@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/12/2014 08:15 PM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:
> This is because all the bugs you are marking duplicates of 1327220 
> aren't using Lucid Server, but Lucid Desktop, which is EoL as of 
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases . As a member of Ubuntu Bug Control 
> you should have already been keenly aware of this link. However, if 
> there has been a change in the End of Life for Lucid Desktop I've not 
> been made aware of, I'll be more than happy to reverse the Status and 
> triage appropriately. 
Yes, I'm aware of it. In fact, I've closed bugs as incomplete/obsolete 
because they were filed against a non-server package in Lucid. That does 
not change my stance on this matter...
BTW, were you keenly aware that Lucid Server and its packages (including 
kernel) are supported until 2015? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases

> However, the users are in a dangerous position as already
> e-mailed to you by Steve Langasek (Canonical) in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014/comments/13
> , which would support my initial Status as noted earlier to you in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014/comments/8
> that you decided to override.

First, I did not override your Won't Fix status. I marked the bugs 
duplicate of the correct bug (which is actually tagged Invalid for all 
releases except Lucid) that dealt with the regression causing the issues.
Next, you should read Steve Langasek's comment again: "Any 
desktop-affecting regressions in the kernel security update are 
certainly unintentional, but if they only affect no-longer-supported 
desktop packages, it is not a critical regression."
^Well, that's a pretty lousy policy IMO, but bug 1327300, which was 
filed by John Johansen (Canonical), determines that the regression 
affects the kernel itself and is critical, so Langasek's reasoning does 
not apply and those bugs are duplicates.

The distinction between Server/Desktop is pretty blurry (users who 
installed Desktop may have repurposed their install as a Server or 
vice-verse). Lucid Desktop is indeed EOL, but it is the users' decision 
whether they want to continue running it. I am not saying that those 
users should expect updates/support. I am saying that if Canonical is 
still going to push updates to those users, they need to be responsible 
when those updates break things instead of just saying, "Nope. EOL!" In 
other words, don't pee on the users' legs and tell them it's raining...


> As well, I sent you a personal e-mail
> about this to settle it one-on-one, but you wanted to be splashy and
> bring your mistakes out into wider preview.
I posted this before your e-mail because I want other Bug Control 
members to settle the matter. If I got too personal in the initial post, 
I apologize. I just wanted to make clear why I was posting this to the 
list rather than trying to debate one-on-one.


Based on the above and the bit of input received from other bug control 
members, I have once again marked the bugs as duplicates. It is not to 
"override" you, but so the users can see the cause of and resolution to 
their issue. DO NOT undo my work again.
**Thank you for understanding**