Comment 14 for bug 246053

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Pitt wrote:
> hyperair [2008-09-04 0:50 -0000]:
>> Another thing is that if this issue is left as it is, and users for
>> whom uswsusp is broken upgrade to Intrepid, where there's a new
>> version of pm-utils which correctly utilizes uswsusp, then it's
>> going to get a whole lot of bug reports and/or complaints/negative
>> blog/forum posts saying that "Intrepid broke my hibernate!"
>
> But imagine the bad press we would (rightfully) get if we broke
> *hardy* in the same way, a release which is supposed to be very stable
> and rock solid...
>
> While I appreciate your concerns, the principle of SRUs has always
> been that the first priority is to not break existing things. It is
> so much better and reliable to leave broken things broken than to
> break things which have worked fine before.
>
"Things which have worked fine before." Like what? Installing uswsusp and hibernate apparently
working? (it'd have worked just the same without uswsusp installed because Hardy's pm-utils doesn't
work)

What I'm trying to say here is that the regression we're talking about now will only happens to
users who had already installed uswsusp. These users are either rare, or already know the
consequences of installing uswsusp (it may or may not break hibernate). Since they've already done
that, and acknowledged the consequences, I'm sure Ubuntu will get little, if any bad press from this
group.

However, taking it from another perspective, pm-utils doesn't get fixed, and a group of very vocal
people who want to use uswsusp find out about the reason why it doesn't work on the hardy and solid
Ubuntu Hardy Heron. LTS, no less. I reckon that Ubuntu would (even more rightfully) get bad press.

- --
Hyperair
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIv6nw4LFcUo8CpBERAiGKAJ9aIUuduT5Q7qOA+lhwg3L5szXbUgCgocvG
7EfCDUp8nwuF8myqeiJnIks=
=+s8A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----