Invalid due to package removal in development release

Brian Murray brian at ubuntu.com
Fri Mar 25 21:07:24 UTC 2011


On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:47:23AM -0600, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> Has there been a policy change I missed? As of 2011-03-23, all bugs
> against "usplash" were closed as invalid because the package was
> removed from Natty Narwhal. This package is still present in all active
> releases, according to rmadison:
> 
> rmadison usplash
>    usplash | 0.2-4 | dapper | source, amd64, i386, powerpc
>    usplash | 0.5.19 | hardy | source, amd64, i386
>    usplash | 0.5.49 | karmic | source, amd64, i386
>    usplash | 0.5.51 | lucid/universe | source, amd64, i386
>    usplash | 0.5.52 | maverick/universe | source, amd64, i386
> 
> I was unaware that as packages are removed from the development
> release, every bug against that package is now invalid.

In Launchpad when we look at a bug report and the bug task listing table
the default task (one with out a specific release identified) is
considered to affect the development release of Ubuntu.  Right now, this
happens to be Natty but two months from now it will be Oneiric.  Because
more often than not bugs are carried over from release to release we
leave all bugs reported during a previous release cycle open rather than
closing them all.  However, the software in the development release
changes over time and packages are added and removed.  As packages are
removed their default task does in fact become Invalid - there is no way
that it can be fixed in a release the package doesn't exist in.

This doesn't mean we should write a script to invalidate all the bug
reports about packages that have been removed from the development
release or previous releases.  Rather each bug report should be looked
at individually because it is possible that the bug is worthy of fixing
in a stable release of Ubuntu and a stable release task should be
opened.

Additionally, when closing these bug reports about packages that have
been removed we should be very verbose about why the bug is being
closed and communicate how someone can go about getting the bug report
fixed in a stable release.  We have tools for replying with a standard
response and there is no reason not to make those responses incredibly
informative.

I think it would be useful, but not a high priority, to review the bug
reports about packages that have been removed from Natty or previous
releases if there is someone or a group of people interested in doing
that.  Before reviewing these type of bug reports though we should come
up with a good standard reply and discuss the criteria for whether or
not something is SRU worthy.

--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20110325/d7ac76cc/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list