Comment 12 for bug 54652

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:07:56PM -0000, André Pirard wrote:
> I don't believe in explaining solutions in the Description field because I did that, writing "Solution: ...", and some surveillant-looking person removed it, without explanation of course, maybe on the ground that it is not a description.

Any proposed solution field would be editable in the same way, so no
change there. But I think you drastically overestimate how much time
people competent to write solution fields would have to fill such a
thing in; time spent on such things has to be traded off against time
spent fixing other bugs, and developers are often working pretty close
to capacity already.

> BTW, the depots should keep previous (superseded) versions of the
> packages.

There is no possible way that archive.ubuntu.com (a widely-mirrored
site) could realistically have space to do this; the instant result
would be a significant reduction in the number of sites willing to
mirror Ubuntu. However, it's possible to download old versions from
launchpad.net.

> This is because a correction can introduce other mistakes. I
> experienced that several times, lately because of the "latest kernel",
> my system was going mad. But fortunately, one can downgrade a kernel and
> I was counting on that and it made me most happy. Isn't that the goal?

Not really, because the logical consequence of what you're asking for,
at least if proper ethical behaviour is applied, is that every old
version has to be security-supported. That does not come close to being
feasible. Managing regressions is a real problem, but this isn't a good
solution.