Comment 15 for bug 995743

Sparhawk:
>"I know you told me to create a new bug report in launchpad rather than presuming it was a duplicate of https://bugs.launchpad.net/linux/+bug/969583..."

The rationale for this is from https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs#A3._Make_sure_the_bug_hasn.27t_already_been_reported .

>"...but given that both bugs have been identified in the upstream kernel, is it proper to link the existing bug at https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43041 ?"

The fact both bugs are identified in the upstream kernel is weak correlation at best, not causation. We definitely have stronger correlation to similar vendor ID, similar model line, mfg. etc. However, it is exactly that. Despite this, hardware differences exist and it would be prudent to report a seperate report and let a developer make that call.

>"(Also, I don't totally understand the rationale in creating another bug report in launchpad, where it seems (to me) reasonably probable that they are duplicates."

Please see above link. As well, on 2012-06-26 I already tagged this report with "likely-dup" due to what we just discussed. Again, I'm letting a developer make that call.

>"N.B. Someone else asked the same question here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/703180/comments/53 , but you must have missed it.)"

Please do not presume I missed something because someone else does not understand the bug triaging process. It's up to my discretion to field every possible question fired at me due to ignorance of the bug triage process. If you have any further questions about the bug triage process, please take this to another forum (ex. https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+addquestion ), as this report should remain focused on the technical details of this report.