The Application of Colin King for PPU - Q&A and Voting Thread
lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
Wed May 24 07:54:03 UTC 2017
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
> 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.
>> 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:
>>> 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
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
More information about the Devel-permissions