PPA support policy
txwikinger at ubuntu.com
Mon Jul 6 04:16:57 BST 2009
Well, generally looked at this issue it seems to make sense. However, I think
some other issues play in line with this.
1) I personally running pre-4.3 on jaunty because of all the issues and
regressions in 4.2. IMHO 4.2 is not a stable version on jaunty. Therefore, I
ended up upgrading due to reports and hope that 4.3 would solve it (well some
has been solved, some has gotten worse).
I am not sure how many others have done the same for the same reason.
2) It is also IMHO a big problem that it is not realistic to downgrade back
(at least I know of no such way that would be possible to be used safely).
Therefore, it is somehow a catch-22.
However, I usually report most of those problems directly upstream with the
bughelper. This does comply with the suggested policy, as I understand it.
However, it is not 100% clear how it can be easily figured out if certain fixes
are available in Kubuntu packages.
Concluding, I think it is a good idea to encourage reporting upstream
especially for those problems. However, as long as there are severe issues
with the stable version(s) (which I consider to be regressions), we may need a
simple way that allow to figure out when Kubuntu packages are available that fix
I hope there is a way, this can be done without too much additional work.
On July 5, 2009 02:20:00 pm Harald Sitter wrote:
> As of recently we get quite some reports using KDE pre-4.3 on jaunty
> from PPA. Of which some appear to cause a lot of investigation work.
> Some bugs can cause a triage overhead with the result that the issue
> was caused by a bug fixed 3 days later in SVN... So I'd very much like
> to have a policy on what kind of support we provide for PPA
> IMHO: installation-support-only unless
> Because: Until KDE reached .0 it is a fast moving code base and issues
> should be perused upstream, since we mostly provided the packages to
> help upstream aggregate testing anyway. Once it reached .0 we usually
> consider getting the packages into -backports, so we should try to
> minimize regressions and in general ensure it is not making your
> system explode. Still, unless an issues is proven to not affect latest
> stable (e.g. stock jaunty, which would make it a regression) it is of
> no particular interest to us.
> The package-targeting-backports-causes-regression policy would of
> course affect stuff like "my KDE ain't starting anymore"... that is
> obviously a regression ;-)
> The ultimate triage answer to reports failing policy #1:
> "Please report upstream"
> The ultimate triage question to reports failing policy #2:
> "Did this also appear before upgrading to KDE 4.3.0?"
> if no => regression => pursue issue
> Issues reported about the development series are always to be pursued.
> Establishing such policies will most likely cause bad reactions,
> unless we get standard answers that explain very well why there is
> need for those policies, and of course how to make the report valid by
> reproducing it on stable or development. So, do you think it is worth
> the risk and do you think those policies make sense?
More information about the kubuntu-devel