DANGER!!! Problems with 10.04 installer (RAID devices *will* get corrupted)

[Alvin Thompson]

On 04/22/2010 07:33 PM, Xander Pirdy wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Alvin Thompson<alvin at thompsonlogic.com>  wrote:
>> On 04/22/2010 01:47 PM, Xander Pirdy wrote:
>>> I am having trouble understanding why after saying that you absolutely
>>> would not post the bug and were going to walk away from ubuntu, you
>>> are trying to hinder it from being investigated thoroughly. I have
>>> unmarked the duplicate tag, and am asking you not to re-mark it until
>>> it has been investigated THOROUGHLY by a THIRD party (though in all
>>> honesty I have no formal authority to say this). I really am having
>>> trouble identifying your agenda here, though one seems to be present.
>>> I also find it hard to understand that you would not want to
>>> participate in the process that makes ubuntu better by submitting a
>>> report, but are feeding the flames of a war on a mailing list.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm the only one who appears
>> to have made any kind of investigation of this problem.
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-users mailing list
>> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>>
> Alvin,
> Not everyone who has posted on this list agrees with you. By marking
> it as duplicate developers will not see the issue. Some upon seeing
> 191119, and seeing that it is two years old may think it is irrelevant
> or fixed. Again it seems as if you have some other motive for not
> wanting this to be seen.
>
> I agree that you are the only one who has made any kind of
> investigation of this issue, but I am trying to make it so that is not
> the case. Perhaps when I get time to try and set up a raid 5 array as
> well as the release candidate I will look into it, though I am far
> less qualified than you I am sure. Even if it is a duplicate it just
> needs to be seen by more people. I don't understand why you disagree.
>
> Since there seems to be some disagreement back and forth on this list
> about whether or not it is a duplicate, I would rather not hide it
> from view IN CASE it is not. Again as soon as someone PROVES that it
> is a duplicate I will remove that duplicate tag. If you wanted better
> control over the problem than this I suggest that in the future you
> post your own bugs. If you or anyone else thinks that I am behaving
> inappropriately or in an inflammatory manner I will back down and walk
> away from this whole issue as really it doesn't affect me at all.
>
> While again I understand that you have lost a great deal of work and
> time on this, and can't fathom how bad that has been for you, it seems
> like you don't actually want it fixed, or even looked at, and that I
> don't understand.
>
> -Xander
>

Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about.

1. Please read my comment on bug 568183 why it's a duplicate of 191119.

2. When I marked 568183 is a dup of 191119, I also changed the status of 
191119 from 'incomplete' to 'confirmed'.  That will ensure that it gets 
looked at.

3. Bug 191119 has the correct package assigned.  This will ensure that 
the appropriate people sees it.  568183 has no package assigned.

4. Bug 191119 has more subscribers than 568183.  In other words more 
people will see it.

5. When you mark 568183 as a dup of 191119, all people who are notified 
about changes to 568183 will automatically also be notified about 
changes to 191119.

Because of #5 above, in the absolute worst-case scenario, bug 191119 is 
AT LEAST as visible as bug 568183.  Because of 1-4, 191119 is actually 
considerably more visible than 568183.  Therefore, the most visible 
place to comment on this is 191119.