ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Thomas Ward <teward@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:17, Alberto Salvia Novella <es20490446e@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Stephen M. Webb:
>> If the bug has been fixed upstream, the upstream bug task should
>> have the status of 'Fix Committed' or 'Fix Released'.
> 
> Although this is true, bugs that request upgrade are still the ones which fix will make the most difference in the software's quality

Not really.  Case in point Lua for example.  If Lua upgrades break compatibility with software in Main, then the software upgrade which may increase the quality of one program will degrade the quality of others with a net overall drop in Ubuntu quality.  There are also other cases where a software upgrade can actually degrade the quality of the Ubuntu operating system as well.  While I cannot name those at this time, I'm sure we can find a case that matches those.

> and managing them is so fast it will not create delays in solving critical bugs.

Except this isn't always the case.  When a software has no rdeps, then this may be true, but in a lot of cases upgrades can introduce new bugs and in some cases regressions.  Upgrade tasks aren't, therefore, high priority nor feasible at all times, because they can introduce new issues and compatibility issues.

> 
> Stephen M. Webb:
> > If there is no upstream bug task, how do you know the bugs has been
> > fixed upstream and will be resolved by an upgrade?
> 
> You can't know directly, so the rest of bugs will still need to be managed in a one by one manner.
> 
> On the other hand, you can mark bugs you know as being fixed in the upgraded package version and not being in the old one; also to figure out easier that the bug perhaps is not longer present if the spotted version is the old one.