Timeline for Should the NVIDIA bug question be made a community wiki?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 14:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 1:12 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/AskUbuntu/status/849791799602401280 | ||
| Apr 4, 2017 at 4:25 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | @JasonC I agree with you and muru has said the same from the start. | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 23:22 | comment | added | Jason C | (And even driver version isn't particularly varying; it's going to be one of the Feb 14 2017 driver branches, maybe even just 375/378.) | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 23:16 | comment | added | Jason C | ... on the internet that somebody will find instead (and in the Linux community a fair number of the issues are probably just being bug reported to various mailing lists anyways), and the bug is known and a fix will be released soon, making the whole thing obsolete anyways. The presence of a perfect list of affected hardware doesn't actually change much and isn't something to be considered in the CW-ness of this. NVIDIA uses unified drivers for all their stuff anyways so the hardware isn't even that important, the driver versions are of primary interest (fsv "interest"). | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 23:15 | comment | added | Jason C | I agree that there is no good reason to make this CW. But, just a remark: The premise being tossed around here seems odd. There's actually no compelling reason to keep the affected hardware list up to date (or even include it to begin with). The post wouldn't be difficult to find without it, and even if this post isn't found there's plenty of info about the issue elsewhere ... | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 17:39 | history | edited | You'reAGitForNotUsingGit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2017 at 16:51 | answer | added | Kaz Wolfe | timeline score: -7 | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 16:45 | answer | added | muru | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 16:43 | comment | added | Elder Geek | I would agree that there is no reason to convert it to a CW, closing? In it's previous form it seemed clear that the root cause of the problem is bugs in the NVIDIA driver prior to the most recent edit, I believe the answers to workaround the issue have value (at least until such time as NVIDIA resolves the issue with their proprietary drivers) All that said, Closing the question isn't the same as deleting it so the answers will still exist and still be useful even if it is closed so I'm not adamant on either side of this one. | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 10:07 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2017 at 9:04 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | I'm inclined to agree that it's better to keep it open | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 8:54 | comment | added | Dan | Just commenting about the note, as I can see people are already voting to close the question. I don't think it should be closed as a bug report in this case. I think protecting the question is enough. The problem is somewhat serious, and letting people know how they can temporarily fix their problem is helpful. | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 8:12 | comment | added | Zanna Mod | the person who thinks it should be CW invited me to make a meta post @MarkKirby so I've asked the question "neutrally" so that they can add their answer in favour of it | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 8:01 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | I am confused why you asked this and then answered no to it your self, did I miss some context? I do agree it does not need to be a CW though. IMO CW is for collaborative efforts (ie multiple people worked on the post or a post was edited beyond its original scope). I do think it should be closed as a bug so people go to the bug report but not deleted, so it can then be reopened when a fix is issued from Nvidia. | |
| S Apr 3, 2017 at 7:28 | answer | added | ZannaMod | timeline score: 12 | |
| S Apr 3, 2017 at 7:28 | history | asked | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |