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

[NoOp]

On 04/22/2010 06:38 PM, Alvin Thompson wrote:
> 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.
> 

Not trimmed on purpose.

What a sad, sorry state this has evolved to.

You stated:

> On 04/21/2010 04:03 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>> hi, what is the bug number, do you have a link to the matching
>>> launchpad entry ?
> I haven't submitted a bug.  There's more than enough information in
> my emails to this list to recreate the problem if you wish to do so.
> 

Xander was kind enough to go ahead & file the bug report (I'm certain he
did this in an effort to help) & also bothered to look up other possible
dupes, and you blast off by marking the bug as a dupe & then posting
this gem on the dupe as your very first comment:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/parted/+bug/191119/comments/5
> Alvin Thompson  wrote on 2010-04-22:  	  #5
> 
> No, it is NOT fucking fixed. I can't believe it's been OVER TWO YEARS
> and no one has bothered to even look at this easily reproducible
> issue? And because of it my (and who knows how many other people's)
> data is hosed. What issues DO you investigate, if you don't
> investigate corrupted file systems during the install? I've defended
> you guys ad nauseum in the past, but I can't avoid it any more: you
> guys are just plain lazy. I guess you just want a bullet on your
> resume saying that you're a contributer to Ubuntu, but don't actually
> want to do any work. I can't just say that you're useless, because
> useless people just don't do anything and are a drain on society. YOU
> allowed people's data to be lost because of your buggy garbage that
> you call code, and you didn't bother to fix it because you're lazy.

I've no interest in trying to figure out who is right or wrong, as
mentioned before I know squat about RAID's. However, IMO it might be a
good idea to try to settle this amicably and consider that the end goal
is to get the problem resolved.

I realize that you've been at this longer than I, but here are a few
links that I fall back to when in doubt about bug reporting:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/BestPractices
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/KnowledgeBase

That last has a link regarding duplicates:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/MarkingDuplicate

sometimes it just pays to be polite and work with the developers/person
assigned to the bug:
Sample:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/udev/+bug/562978/comments/13
> NoOp  wrote on 2010-04-16:  	  #13
>
> This looks to be a duplicate of
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/552195
> However, given that you may be on to a fix I'll be happy to mark
5522195 as a dupe of this bug if you think it appropriate.
[552195 was my bug]
Response:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/udev/+bug/562978/comments/14
> Martin Pitt  wrote on 2010-04-16:  	  #14
>
> Indeed, I'll do so

IOW I corresponded with the person assigned to 562978 (Martin) that I:
1) thought my bug was a dupe of 56978, and 2) politely notified that I
thought my bug looked to be a dupe and noted that I'd be happy to mark
my bug as a dupe. Doing so, this way not only notified the developer
working on 56978 that there was a dupe, but also allowed him to mark
mine as a dupe so that he wouldn't have to go sorting that one out
later. Everyone won in the end & the bug was fixed.

Again, the end goal (IMO) in filing bugs & working with the folks who
donate their time in attempting to resolve those bugs (this is an
opensource project/OS), is to get the problem resolved. Pissing folks
off, no matter the emotion at the time, probably isn't the best way to
meet the goal.

Given that you have first hand knowledge of what you speak, perhaps you
might take some of my (and others) earlier suggestions and search for
other possible duplicates (as Xander did), and see if there may be other
related bugs. Help instead of demanding is a good thing (IMO).