making a workaround web page for bugs, in LTS release, not fixed

[Marco Pallotta]

2010/1/7 Charlie Kravetz <cjk at teamcharliesangels.com>:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:51:07 -0500
> John Moser <john.r.moser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Marco Pallotta <marco.pallotta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Often Ubuntu users (expecially new users or user that doesn't know
>> > much of Ubuntu bug fixing procedure) are disoriented by the fact that
>> > bugs, in LTS releases, aren't fixed (or they are marked as "fix
>> > released" if they aren't present anymore in next Ubuntu releases)  if
>>
>> I'm still surprised that supposedly supported versions don't have bug fixes.
>>
>> You get these kinds of reports:
>>
>>  - 7.10 is a great release
>>  - 8.04 is the worst crap I've ever seen, everything is broken
>>  - 8.10 is an amazing release, with all the broken crap in 8.04 fixed
>>
>> And you get a point in time where this becomes true:
>>
>>  - 7.10 has mostly working software.
>>  - 8.04 has about half its software still broken
>>  - 8.10 has all those bugs from 8.04 AND 7.10 fixed, and all its software works
>>  - To get any of 2 or 3 dozen apps in 8.04 to work, you should upgrade to 8.10
>>  - To get any of 1 or 2 apps in 7.10 to work, upgrade to 8.10
>>
>> Ubuntu has had at least one release that was hailed as the biggest
>> mistake in history, where the entire system seemed duct taped together
>> and very basic functionality was largely broken.  Python errors got
>> spit out by things like Serpentine.  Some apps crashed.  The MP3
>> encoder crashed immediately if you fed it output from oggdec (gtkpod
>> thus didn't function).  The kernel wasn't even stable on some systems,
>> due to a scheduler bug or something non-trivial along those lines.  I
>> think that was 8.10?
>>
>> When I finally upgraded, everything was still broken in the old
>> version, and everything was working in the new version.  Last I
>> looked, everything was still broken in that version.
>>
>> My question is:  do such versions of Ubuntu remain broken and
>> dysfunctional until they're no longer supported?  Is this proper?  Or
>> should fixes get backported to all supported releases AND LTS such
>> that the oldest version always has the fewest problems, but also fewer
>> features?
>>
>
> Ubuntu bugsquad already has a policy that workarounds should be
> identified and moved into the bug description. If that was happening,
> it should be easy to grab the section labeled "WORKAROUND:", right?


Well,

I saw not many of these labeled bugs. I think we whould start a
different process to identify a workaround solution for an issue that
will not be fixed.


>
> --
> Charlie Kravetz
> Linux Registered User Number 425914          [http://counter.li.org/]
> Never let anyone steal your DREAM.           [http://keepingdreams.com]
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>



-- 

==================================
Marco Pallotta

EMail: marco.pallotta at gmail.com

CHAT:
msn # pallotta at inwind.it
googletalk # marco.pallotta at gmail.com
skype # marco.pallotta
==================================