Ubuntu Server Guide: How to manage launchpad bug reoprts

[Doug Smythies]

On 2019.09.15 14:30 Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2019.09.15 12:04 Bryce Harrington wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 08:42:40AM -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:

...

> 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);

Done.
I had to do it twice, and so apologise if people got
redundant e-mails about it (probably only doc team committers, but
don't really know).

> 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.

Pending, just in case anyone wants to suggest something else.
Otherwise, I'll do this step in about 24 hours.

>> 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.

I forgot to mention, if it is really desirable that some fixes be backported
to the DocBook bionic version, I'll take care of it, depending on the volume
of work that evolves. I will not (and never have) backport to trusty.
Why don't we typically backport fixes? Because I am only one person, and can't
be bothered.

... Doug