RFC: Stable kernel updates and the SRU process

Tim Gardner tcanonical at tpi.com
Mon Oct 27 18:35:05 UTC 2008

Martin Pitt wrote:
> Tim Gardner [2008-10-27  8:27 -0600]:
>> For example, there are 43 functional commits in the 2.6.27.y tree
>> that have not been applied to Intrepid. Do _you_ want to write the
>> SRU report for each of those commits?  I sure don't.
> No, we shouldn't. We don't do this for GNOME point releases either.
> That's exactly why I suggested to just have a "collective" bug like
> "update to 2.6.27.x bug fixes" if we don't already have a bunch of SRU
> bugs for our own purposes anyway:
>>> So unless a kernel patch has to go into -updates really quickly, I am
>>> all for including changes from upstream stable, provided that you read
>>> over them and check that they don't blatantly conflict with something
>>> we want to do in Ubuntu, and are otherwise ok.
>>> In a case where an upstream stable update would be the only part of a
>>> SRU, it should have an LP # which is listing the changelog and
>>> documenting testing feedback.

I can handle one collective SRU report for test tracking purposes. I
guess I didn't initially understand your meaning.

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com

More information about the kernel-team mailing list