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

[Ryein Goddard]

Alright Teo, it sounds like you have a reason to be upset, but you have 
also not provided enough details and have also scared people away with 
the way you have worded things.  People shouldn't call you a troll, but 
you should be aware of how you are treating others and how they expect 
to be treated.  I hope you continue to use Ubuntu and help reporting 
issues that you run into.  People do care about making Ubuntu better.  
Personally I have upgraded several times and things have always gone 
well.  Perhaps if you include more details you could potentially help 
people with a fringe case that weren't aware of.


On 12/12/2016 11:13 AM, Dave Morley wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>