ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

["Christopher M. Penalver" <christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Letzeisen, thanks for your comments. Regarding them:

To: ubuntu-bugcontrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Daniel Letzeisen <dtl131@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400
In-reply-to: <CAF4BKcB=bV=tgrXqcDR+w4-Qr4sqnMurJ9gCaVKKNf62DQyMAg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/30.0

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."

Which would be the appropriate action in that case. However, you are
still misunderstanding that support is not on a per package basis
(whether linux, libreoffice, etc.), but a release one (Lucid Desktop
v. Lucid Server).

>>"That does not change my stance on this matter..."

It should, given the above. You are encouraging those with EoL
releases into thinking they are supported, when they are clearly not.

>>"BTW, were you keenly aware that Lucid Server and its packages (including kernel) are supported until 2015? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases...";

Is this a serious question?

> 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."

By marking a bug a duplicate of another, after I've clearly marked it
Invalid or Won't Fix as per this discussion, this would be overriding.
However, I'm always happy to have someone catch a mistake I would have
made and override that. I appreciate it that folks are that concerned
that they do share their knowledge on a subject I may not be as
familiar with. It's an opportunity to learn. However, this is not that
case.

>>"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..."

That policy was set in place at the release of Lucid Desktop, and has
been known for going on 6 years. I wouldn't classify it as lousy,
given that the support expectations were clearly communicated since
day one.

>>"..., but bug 1327300, which was filed by John Johansen (Canonical), determines that the regression affects the kernel itself and is critical..."

Agreed.

>>"...so Langasek's reasoning does not apply and those bugs are duplicates."

Steve's reasoning couldn't be any more applicable and accurate.

>>"The distinction between Server/Desktop is pretty blurry..."

It's distinctly straight forward, especially for those like myself who
are using it in an enterprise environment.

>> "...(users who installed Desktop may have repurposed their install as a Server or vice-verse)."

The purposing of an install isn't at issue. It's the ISO downloaded
and used. The Desktop ISO wasn't engineered for Servers, and vice
versa. If the Desktop ISO works as a server, that's great, but it's
not intended to be used as a server, nor supported that way. It's like
calling Microsoft for server support for Windows XP. You are going to
get laughed off the phone.

>>"Lucid Desktop is indeed EOL, but it is the users' decision whether they want to continue running it."

Nobody is arguing that if someone wants to shoot themselves in the
foot, they don't have the right to do so.

>>"I am not saying that those users should expect updates/support."

By marking Lucid Desktop bugs a duplicate of a Lucid Server bug, you
are doing one thing on Launchpad, and then saying the complete
opposite here at a later point in time.

>>"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..."

Well, blaming Canonical for not implementing 6+ years ago a granular
update mechanism to prevent Lucid Desktop users from receiving Lucid
Server updates would not be the issue here.

> 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."

There is no matter to settle. The policies speak for themselves loud and clear.

>>"If I got too personal in the initial post, I apologize."

I would say less personal, but more rude and obnoxious, but apology
accepted anyways.

>>"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."

Unfortunately, you would be undoing the work already done by others
prior to you, by undermining the security integrity of those using
Lucid Desktop, and fooling them into thinking they are supported.

This is a pretty clear cut case of you would be just outright
mistaken, and then trying to create some new support structure out of
thin air. Please feel free to unmark the duplicates at your earliest
convenience.

Christopher M. Penalver
E-Mail: christopher.m.penalver@xxxxxxxxx