Fwd: Re: Asking users to upstream

[Thomas Ward]

Comments below.

On 04/28/2015 02:33 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Seems that I cannot longer mail the Quality team. Probably someone got
> angry with 🍘.
I've already had this discussion with Nicholas Skaggs again.  It was
decided previously as a matter of POLICY for this list to not use
Emoji.  And while the mailing list is supposed to filter it out, Unicode
ones can still make it in.

This is NOT the first time you've been told this, so once more, follow
that discussion and stop the emoji.  Like my prior emails had said too.

> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: Asking users to upstream
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:44:26 +0200
> From: Alberto Salvia Novella <es20490446e at gmail.com>
> To: Ubuntu Quality Team <ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com>
>
>
> Javier Domingo Cansino:
>  > Ubuntu is not a bleeding edge distro and because of that, development
>  > upstream can be affected by already corrected bugs. In Arch Linux for
>  > example, users report all bugs upstream but the ones concerning the
>  > packaging. This flow however is damaging (IMO) when users are served
>  > outdated versions of programs.
>
> I think the only way to know is actually asking upstream.
>
> On the other hand, this issue is the reason why I only work on bugs in
> the current and future Ubuntu releases. So perhaps bugs in previous
> releases could be treated differently, if you have a better idea.
>
I think this is a case where we need to actually check the upstream
versions, for older releases.  There are multiple instances where I can
think this would be an issue, but it still needs to be checked by
triagers before asking upstreams.  Most upstreams will likely make the
'supported versions' list available.  At the point of checking if
Upstream supports the version of the software, then perhaps give an
advisory to upstream.  Or instruct users on how to check, or to check at
the upstream's website(s).


Thomas