Ubuntu Server Guide: How to manage launchpad bug reoprts

Doug Smythies dsmythies at telus.net
Sun Sep 15 21:29:37 UTC 2019


Hi Bryce,

Thanks for your reply.

On 2019.09.15 12:04 Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 08:42:40AM -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> For the serverguide discourse version what is the plan
>> for how launchpad bugs should be dealt with?
>> 
>> Let's use bug 1839717 as an example case.
>> I chose this bug report because it is so trivial.
>> 
>> What I want to do is fix the bug for the DocBook version,
>> but leave it active for the discourse version. This would normally
>> be done via entering "target to series" stuff into the bug report.
>> however, there is no such 20.04 series in launchpad.
>> 
>> Does anybody have suggestions?
>> I do not know if it possible or practical, but perhaps a dummy series
>> called "discourse" could be setup, that could be a target series.
>
> From https://launchpad.net/serverguide/+series it looks like the intent
> was to have one series per lts, but it is missing bionic,

Actually, bionic is not missing, but it is still called "trunk".
Why? Because we only allow the master "trunk" branch to diverge
from "bionic", when we absolutely have to, which is typically sometime
around now, as 20.04 specific edits might start to land. However, for
this cycle, "bionic' will never be split out of "trunk", because there
will never be a DocBook version of serverguide 20.04.

> and given the
> current documentation efforts I agree with you a new series should be
> added.
>
> You're right though we don't know what the 20.04 release name will be,
> which suggests a series name would need to be either '20.04' or
> 'f-series' or similar, and then rename when the actual release name is
> known.

> For the current efforts, naming a series 'discourse' would work but
> thinking ahead to 22.04 and future LTS's, it could get confusing, so I
> think continuing the existing series naming traditions for serverguide
> would have less chance of confusion.

Oh.
O.K. then I suggest, we split out "bionic" from "trunk", and continue
as we have done in the past: "trunk" will be called "trunk" until about
21.10 (or until we know what to change it to , if you prefer);
the actual content of "trunk" will be meaningless and is really
only used to support the existing bug reporting infrastructure.
Actually, I'll probably make a "bzr commit" deleting all content, but
leave behind a README file explaining.

> Btw, thank you for pointing out the bug tracker, there seem to be some
> really solid suggestions here.  It'll be great if we can give some of
> these attention this cycle.  Doug, what are your thoughts on where we'd
> bang for the buck to work on?

Sorry, but I don't know. I have been over my head with the serverguide
for years. Subject matter expert input is desperately desired/required.
For many years now the claim has been that it was difficulties with
the "DocBook" stuff that was one major stumbling block to more corrections,
revisions, and new content. I'm just hoping that is true. Perhaps naively,
I don't know, but I was hoping the entire server team would now start
picking away at the bug reports.

... Doug





More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list