[ANN] What with all these releases ?

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> writes:

    > On 21 September 2010 11:06, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
    >>> We could, if we chose, run it on the buildds as part of the package
    >>> build, too.
    >> 
    >> I added <https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bzr/+bug/644015>
    >> for that; if you'd like to make a branch that does it, that would be
    >> great - we could even just try it in the 2.3b ppa builds at first.

    > It turns out there are some failures when run there; they seem pretty
    > shallow and there is an output file attached.  There are also some
    > failures (I think a subset) when you run from an installed copy.


Related bugs:

- http://pad.lv/632387 for the LANG=C stuff (unicode), this one has been
  targeted at 2.2 though while the attachment to bug #644105 is for
  2.2.0

- http://pad.lv/644855 for the test isolation failures (pending review)

- http://pad.lv/646133 for the failures caused by running as root and
  trying to test some readonly (or unreadable) files though (4 failures
  for the lp:bzr/2.1 branch),


    >>>> I expect at the next TB meeting it will be formally approved and then
    >>>> added to the micro release approval list.

    > It was, subject to reenabling tests during builds, and testing the
    > packages after building.

I think we should do that for 2.2.2 and the 2.3 series at best:

- I suspect we will encounter problems with testtools and 2.0 (we made
  some changes that we didn't backport to 2.0 IIRC),

- I fear some return of the leaking tests or any other spurious failure

Or we could just decide to activate the tests during the build starting
with the 2.2 series and rely on manual test after installation for the
SRUs of 2.1 and 2.0 ?

    >>>> 
    >>>> I think we still need a figurehead bug to kick off an update?
    >>> 
    >>> Hmm. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions
    >>> does not explicitly say so, but looking at several example recent
    >>> uploads of packages already on the SRU/MRE list, they don't seem to
    >>> bother with figurehead bugs. (Though of course we should still ensure
    >>> all relevant LP bug numbers appear in the debian/changelogs).
    >> 
    >> Perhaps if an SRU team member decides to upload, they don't have to
    >> have a bug, but for us it is a useful way to ask them to do it?
    >> 
    >> I think the processes are not quite as sharp-edged as they may seem.
    >> Which is fine.  Getting into MRE and having a figurehead bug may in a
    >> sense be overkill, but they're not too hard to do and they may get
    >> things flowing more smoothly.  I would rather not have to convince
    >> each individual SRU team member that our release qualifies.

    > They do still want figurehead bugs.

This applies to the current releases as well as the next ones AIUI, but
I still don't know how to prepare a packaging branch for that :-/

Any takers ? Max ?

The bugs to nominate are:

- 2.2.1: http://pad.lv/636930
- 2.1.3: http://pad.lv/525571
- 2.0.6: http://pad.lv/582656

    Vincent