[ANN] What with all these releases ?

[Max Bowsher]

On 20/09/10 14:59, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> On 9/19/2010 8:58 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
>> On 19 September 2010 09:31, Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> wrote:
>>> All I meant is that the SRU process involves extra effort for us, and
>>> the Ubuntu SRU team, and this effort is mostly separate for each
>>> separate distroseries - so we need to decide for which ones it is worth
>>> the effort. However, a lot of that effort disappears if we get a
>>> MicroReleaseException.
> 
>> ... because they don't need so much individual verification of the changes?
> 
> 
> Reading the MRE page, it definitely seems more about packages that are
> "stable but don't fit the SRU guidelines". I saw that Martin Pitt
> pointed out the same thing.
> 
> The big thing is figuring out why there is so much friction for us. From
> the time we cut a new .x release, to how we can get it into -updates.

AIUI, The friction exists because the Ubuntu SRU process is designed to
facilitate extremely cautious critical updates. Bazaar micro releases
contain more than tightly-targeted fixes for critical updates - i.e.
they contain more general bugfixes.

The MicroReleaseException process is designed to alleviate this for
project with sufficient QA.

> - From what I read of the responses, it should have already been
> happening. (aside from running the test suite either as part of the
> build, or as part of a post-install test.) TBH I don't know if our test
> suite is install-clean. I know it isn't on Windows, though we want to
> fix that (by at least skipping tests that want 'python' available.)
> 
>>>>     > - perhaps by applying for a SRU MicroReleaseException for bzr:
>>>>     > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions
>>>>
>>>> Yup, already done by Martin as said above, I don't think we got an
>>>> answer yet.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. We should find out what the current feeling and likely
>>> timeframe is on this one, to know whether we need to do manual SRU
>>> requests for these current releases.
> 
>> Three technical board members replied and they seem quite positive
>> (indeed quite flattering).
>> <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-September/000506.html>
>>  They have one specific request which is that as part of the process
>> we should run 'selftest' on the packaged form, which makes sense.
>> (It's probably often done now, but perhaps it should be written down).
> 
>> I expect at the next TB meeting it will be formally approved and then
>> added to the micro release approval list.
> 
>> I think we still need a figurehead bug to kick off an update?
> 
> 
> Figurehead bugs seem pretty easy, we have a whole milestone listing all
> 20 or so bugs we fixed. :)

Yeah, but doing anything just because the process is awkward is
dissatisfying, and I don't think we need to based on other packages with
MREs.

Max.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100920/c3cc2c5f/attachment.pgp