The Application of Colin King for PPU - Q&A and Voting Thread

[Lukasz Zemczak]

Hey Colin!

On 24 May 2017 at 00:09, Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com> wrote:
> One specific reason that comes to mind is that it fails the ADT testing.
> I'd immediately check the status at
> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html
> and investigate that first.

That's the main reason indeed! But are there any others? Let's say,
you pushed a new package to the development series, all autopkgtests
succeed, no archive freeze is in place - but your package still
doesn't automatically migrate. What could be wrong? Where should you
look for some answers?

> I'm very familiar with this as I work on many SRU bugs for the Ubuntu
> kernel and I want to avoid any form of kernel breakage/regressions. In
> fact I was reviewing a patch today in the kernel team mailing list and
> had to remind the person sending the patch of the due process (see
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2017-May/084309.html )
>
> The required information is as follows:
>
> a) [Impact] A clear explanation of the bug and a good justification for
> the fix.  It is preferable to also describe how the SRU will
> specifically fix the bug.
>
> b) [Test Case]. A set of clear instructions on how to reproduce the bug.
> These need provide enough information for a person who as no prior
> knowledge about the issue to trip the bug and to also check if the bug
> has been fixed.
>
> c) [Regression Potential] A coherent overview of how the SRU fix could
> possibly occur and how they would be observed. Each potential regression
> should explicitly state the risk of the regression and the likely impact.
>
> For larger upstream releases for a SRU, this requires more detail since
> the change set is larger, so references to the release QA process, test
> cases and relevant test documentation is preferred way of showing if
> suitable verification has been performed.
>
> Basically, one needs demonstrate that one has carefully examined the
> multitude of ways that the fix could effect the system and list the
> risks associated with these.  The more information the better. No
> information shows that one has clearly not given any thought to this and
> this is a good reason for having the SRU rejected.
>
> Note: The information to provide is details at length in the
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates wiki page.

Excellent. Just needed to know if you were the one preparing the SRU
paperwork or not. No further questions here.

> Colin.
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On 23 May 2017 at 10:14, Lukasz Zemczak <lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Hello everyone!
>>>
>>> On yesterday's DMB meeting we have decided to handle Colin King's PPU
>>> application remotely through e-mail. I am starting this thread to
>>> begin the review process and then proceed with voting.
>>>
>>> The application in mention:
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ColinKing/DeveloperZFSandSPL
>>>
>>> In short: Colin is applying for PPU rights for zfsutils-linux and spl-linux.
>>>
>>> I would like us to start with questions and after a day or two we
>>> begin the voting process.
>>> Please be sure to ask questions as soon as possible, since for this
>>> application not to go on forever I will not be waiting indefinitely
>>> for everyone to get the required feedback from our applicant.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
>>>  Foundations Team
>>>  lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
>>>  www.canonical.com
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
 Foundations Team
 lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
 www.canonical.com