launchpad-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1

Thu Mar 2 03:42:30 GMT 2006

Dear Sir,

I want to Ubuntu free cd's. I already mailed.Please send cd's

B.BhaskaraRao.

On 3/1/06, launchpad-users-request at lists.canonical.com <
launchpad-users-request at lists.canonical.com> wrote:
>
> Send launchpad-users mailing list submissions to
>         launchpad-users at lists.canonical.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         launchpad-users-request at lists.canonical.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         launchpad-users-owner at lists.canonical.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of launchpad-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead
>       (Matthew Paul Thomas)
>    2. Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead
>       (Stuart Bishop)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:25:20 +1300
> From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt at canonical.com>
> Subject: Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead
> To: launchpad-users at lists.canonical.com
> Message-ID: <b30c1b0808dcab68c5cc65ee82f4410a at canonical.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > ...
> > If all upstream bugs should be open in Ubuntu then something should
> > open them (probably, Launchpad automatically).  If, on the other hand,
> > most bugs shouldn't be open - in particular, if only a small subset of
> > upstream bugs should be recorded against Ubuntu - then there should be
> > a way to close a bug that was opened in Ubuntu's bugtracker but which
> > it has now been decided should not have been reported there.
> > ...
>
> Would it work to add a status meaning "We're not interested in fixing
> the bug here specifically, but we'll happily pick up a fix if/when it
> appears in an upstream release"?
>
> If so, what should the status be called? "Not For Us"? "Won't Fix"?
> "Won't Fix Here"? Bugs with such a status probably should appear by
> default in search results, so that (for example) if I encounter the bug
> in Ubuntu Firefox I can find the bug report even if you've already
> decided that Ubuntu won't be making a special effort to fix it.
>
> - --
> Matthew Paul Thomas
> http://mpt.net.nz/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFEBPgF6PUxNfU6ecoRAlpsAJwPjLKm7D1EjIFM2jogbSZdjvM+rACfdRgO
> R+JpeLG9JUymDldyW7y9tS4=
> =WYbB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:00:30 +0700
> From: Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop at canonical.com>
> Subject: Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead
> To: launchpad-users at lists.canonical.com
> Message-ID: <44050E4E.9070603 at canonical.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> >>> ...
> >>> If all upstream bugs should be open in Ubuntu then something should
> >>> open them (probably, Launchpad automatically).  If, on the other hand,
> >>> most bugs shouldn't be open - in particular, if only a small subset of
> >>> upstream bugs should be recorded against Ubuntu - then there should be
> >>> a way to close a bug that was opened in Ubuntu's bugtracker but which
> >>> it has now been decided should not have been reported there.
> >>> ...
>
> This sounds like Bug Infestations again. If a bug is reported in an
> upstream
> product, then every package using it would be flagged as being 'possibly
> infested', including packages that depend on the infested package. People
> could then confirm the infestation (yes, this affects us), or deny it. The
> infestation is a way of saying 'this package is being vicimized by this
> bug
> and it needs to be fixed over there'. The infestation would never be
> closed
> or removed. When the bug is fixed upstream, ideally a new product release
> is
> produced and packages build from the new product release will no longer be
> infested by the bug.
>
> Although this concept has been around since the earliest days of Malone
> development, this has never been implemented, or even specced out fully.
> Issues include not being able to flag a bug as being fixed in a particular
> product release, and what happens if a bug is opened against a product
> that
> infests nearly everything like a glibc bug. So far, instead of working on
> the infestation concept we have instead extended the bugs and the bugtasks
> to emulate some of this behavior. I'm not sure if the idea has been
> officially dropped or if we just havn't worked out how to make the concept
> actually work.
>
> > Would it work to add a status meaning "We're not interested in fixing
> > the bug here specifically, but we'll happily pick up a fix if/when it
> > appears in an upstream release"?
> >
> > If so, what should the status be called? "Not For Us"? "Won't Fix"?
> > "Won't Fix Here"? Bugs with such a status probably should appear by
> > default in search results, so that (for example) if I encounter the bug
> > in Ubuntu Firefox I can find the bug report even if you've already
> > decided that Ubuntu won't be making a special effort to fix it.
>
> --
> Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop at canonical.com>   http://www.canonical.com/
> Canonical Ltd.                                http://www.ubuntu.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 189 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url :
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/launchpad-users/attachments/20060301/8fab8bde/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> launchpad-users mailing list
> launchpad-users at lists.canonical.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
>
>
> End of launchpad-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/launchpad-users/attachments/20060302/5b5af883/attachment.htm