Upgrade was a disaster as usual <- still dead horse, just a clarification.

[Dave Morley]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 19:09:22 +0000
Dave Morley <davmor2 at davmor2.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:03:08 -0800
> Ryein Goddard <ryein.goddard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > His concern seems valid.  Seems like a quality control issue.  How
> > was this possible?
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/12/2016 10:39 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:  
> > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:45:31 -0500
> > > JMZ <florentior at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >    
> > >> On 12/11/2016 07:12 PM, teo teo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snip>    
> > >>> 2) sticking to an LTS for 2 f***ing years means sticking to
> > >>> tremendously obsolete software, usually full of bugs that have
> > >>> already been fixed upstream (by the way that is usually already
> > >>> true when the ubuntu release is brand new, let alone two years
> > >>> later),    
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >> I know, someone's going to think, "don't feed the troll".  Hear
> > >> me out. Teo teo's concerns about LTS are not trollish.  Users who
> > >> elect to run LTS rather than incremental releases must, at some
> > >> point, maintain the system with more current debs which
> > >> approximate the incremental upgrades.  I always follow the
> > >> incremental upgrades, as I'd rather fix a version which is
> > >> farther along in development than LTS.  I never fully understood
> > >> why a individual user would use LTS. LTS is better suited to a
> > >> circumstance where uniformity is prized, such as small
> > >> businesses, corporations, libraries etc.  Teo teo is certainly
> > >> right that an LTS plan of action has significant deficits.    
> > > That might be true (that Teo's concerns may be important).
> > > Nevertheless, s/he behaves in a trollish way, and *intentionally*
> > > has been evading moderation.
> > >
> > > S/he is moderated again.
> > >
> > > I personally do not care if these concerns are valid or not -- I
> > > stopped reading her/his comments the moment they went to
> > > Trollland.
> > >
> > > There are many ways of raising an issue. The way s/he does it is
> > > not acceptable on the Ubuntu ecosystem.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > ..C..
> > >
> > >    
> >   
> 
> The upgrades are tested repeatedly, in particular for LTS releases.
> The issue her is you can't take into account every piece of hardware
> in the world, or every piece of software.
> 
> We try upgrades with a mix of data and applications, we try from
> default install to default install, we try with none default
> applications selected as default instead of the default ones, so we
> are pretty much covered.
> 
> There are corner cases that we just can't test, for that you report a
> bug and it is worked on by developers so it doesn't happen again, the
> end.
> 

Oh and upgrades are tested in an automated fashion daily too.

-- 
You Make It, I'll Break It!

I Love My Job :)

http://www.canonical.com
http://www.ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-quality/attachments/20161212/53934170/attachment.pgp>