I never really liked the idea of closing and restarting each cycle. Many bugs persist between releases, some concepts, workarounds, knowledge apply to all releases, etc. I'm very much in favor of not closing it anymore. Hopefully that's what the poll results will indicate.
Question: Let's say people decide to stop closing it. Would we keep the closed ones in the archive, as they are now, or would we merge them back? (is it even possible?)
I mean, if we decide that it makes sense to not restart the sub-forum anymore, maybe it would make no sense to have the sub-forum content of the previous releases archived.
I won't say no to merging the old archives into the U+1, but at this time, I really doubt it, I'll have to bring it up with the forum council first. The way we've always done it, was started before the present forum council, and as such we have so far just followed tradition. We are making some changes that we hope will undo some of the restrictions previous councils have put in place, but we won't be making wholesale changes at any time soon.
We've got 8 development release sub-forums archived, and even though there are some underlying bugs that are still bothersome, much of the information in those sub-forums is nowhere near relevant today. The one big problem I see, is that the archived threads aren't indexed by Google at the moment, and if they are folded back into the U+! sub-forum, we could have quite a few more necromanced threads, than we are seeing already, recently we seem to be seeing 10- 15 threads a day brought back from the dead, that have to be dealt with. We don't want to put so much work on the moderation team with the things they deal with day to day that it isn't fun for them to do what they do any more, so we'll really have to think long and hard on this proposal.
Yes, that would be a tremendous load, however, suppose that , for experiemental purposes, it is proposed to the Forum Council to open the most previous archive (Quantal Quetzal) and put it in it's own forum under Specialized Support under a suggested heading "U+1 Ammendments-Quantal". I am sure that a small rule can be implied that the forums topics are to be topical for research and ammendments only in relationship to the current U+1 cycle. So there would always be two back. When '13.10' cycle is ready to roll it would be two back - to raring and quantal.
Ubuntu Specialised Support
Ubuntu +1 (SS)
Ubuntu +1 Ammendments Raring
Ubuntu + 1 Ammendments Quantal
It's like being in a library. You have current research information in front of you but you have to examine an archive. The archive is locked in another room so you have to take an extra step to get there. After examining the archive material it is found that there is something significant to current or something current that is significant to editing an ammendment into the archive. Since the archive is locked , it cannot be edited. Of course the information can be pointed to in a link, quoted and corrected in the current volume, copy and pasted .. etc.. but would it not be much more efficient to make the ammendment as an addendum to the topic matter of any particular subject in question?
I have noticed that people are always referring to " something similar in the last cycle" ... um.. it's sort of like loosing your keys if you get what I mean. This way the knowledge base may be utilized more often and it could save some downtime.
Maybe U+1 sub-forum (current or archive) content shouldn't be indexed by Google at all, as it may provide nontechnical users with dangerous info... And that is easily doable via robots.txt, Google's Webmaster Tools, etc.
That would free us to merge the archives to current, reduce the risk to nontechnical users created by Google hits to U+1 content and, given our small traffic in comparison to General Help, it would hardly impact UbuntuForums popularity in Google searches.
Also, I believe we could merge the archives while keeping its threads closed, to avoid necromancy.
It's something to consider anyway.
I belong to another site where it is policy that posts for "like issues" are contained in a single sub-forum. We now have single threads approaching 2,300 pages and 34,000 posts long. Difficult to read, easy to become confused by outdated issues and almost impossible to follow individual points.
Last edited by PJs Ronin; April 13th, 2013 at 01:58 AM. Reason: clarification
conky thread in the Cafe, 2175 pages and 21,748 replies, and well over 6.4 million views.
I don't think we'll see any of that type of thread here, but I do worry about threads that have old or bad information being brought back to life, until we get the auto-close plugin enabled.
Anyone know what happened to :
sudo -i dpkg --configure -a
I even tried it in Precise and it comes up with an error.
My follow-up question is;
Does there actually have to be broken packages for this to work?