On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure if it's worth that; so far I haven't seen any story which > actually comes out and claims the bug is in Fedora. I just wanted to > provide an explanation in case it comes up. There was one comment on a > fairly obscure news article - > http://techie-buzz.com/foss/ubuntu-10-04-lucid-lynx-hit-by-major-memory-leak-problem.html - which claimed Fedora was affected, but that's all. Blame me for that obscure blog. Hopeful this all blows over and the notoriety that the Ubuntu big has gotten in the last few days doesn't morph into some sort of "common knowledge" that Red Hat/Fedora has this bug and Ubuntu ended up catching it and we didn't. The wording of the launchpad ticket leaves a lot of room to make poor judgements about the pedigree of this particular patchset. As evidenced in the comments of that blog article. phoronix I think is the oldest article I can find from April 21st and I think other blogs have picked it up from there and are rebroadcacsting it . Blogs being what they are, I really don't want to see the poor choice of wording in the Launchpad ticket get mischaracterized in an effort to sensationalize a story and drive blog readership at the expense of... reality. And In case this ends up infesting back channel communications like blog comment areas, twitter or irc...any place where crowdsourced misinformation breeds and propagates... I do not want comments like the one in that blog to be repeated without having a rebuttal a quick google search away. Does it need to be a press release? No. It's not really appropriate to rub Debian or Ubuntu's noses in picking up an intermediate patchset and running with it. But having an easily searchable wiki page at hand for reference would be something nice to have...just in case I need to politely educate someone who chooses to make statements not supported by fact. But I do like the QA story about how our testing repository worked to help iterate a solution inside our new pre-release branching workflow. That's a nice positive story. If we can tell it without referencing the problems others have had in this area, I think that would be a good positive affirmation for our QA team and the new workflow introduced in F13. -jef -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
