Erich, I coincide with your concerns even when I commented. However, I got different conclusions, for a reason that I was lazy to write down clearly.
I have to say that the fix is not premature. It is not that we make a random modification to seem to fix the problem. We have identified (one of) the root cause for the crash. Once the patch gets reviewed, it can't make CUPS worse than before, yet it solves at least part of the problem. How can the patch/fix be considered premature? If this bug is really that severe (breaks all cups-on-samba functionality, where cups and samba are both in main) across 2 dapper betas, I think it should go into release notes. The bug "introduced in CVS, pulled in from there, and fixed by Soren's patch attached earlier" is a _blocker_ (in QA terms) bug. Its presence makes any cups-on-samba printing fail. Without the patch getting applied first, how can we give debug traces for the crash even after the patch is applied? Why can't we fork into another bug? Because as mannheim says, this bug is really for this issue. We got 100% reproducible "cups smb printing backend no longer works". Now we have "bug A", which makes cups-on-samba fail for sure, and we have "bug B", which sometimes causes it fail. Which one do you think qualify for this bug title? 2 bug reports for 2 issues? Agree. IMHO we should apply the patch and mark this bug fixed. Then it should be the people who still fail to open another bug to describe and discuss the prerequisite for the crash to continue appearing. -- cups smb printing backend no longer works https://launchpad.net/bugs/39484 -- desktop-bugs mailing list desktop-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/desktop-bugs
