Karmic kernel common debian infrastructure acceptance request

[Tim Gardner]

On 07/08/2010 09:04 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 08:51:42AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> Stefan has informed me that the proposed Karmic upload has not been
>> accepted on the grounds that the debian packaging changes are too large
>> and do not address a specific bug, thereby violating SRU policy.
>
> My statement on this to Stefan was that I felt that my prior
> instructions were explicitly against this kind of change (I've been
> dragged over the coals before as a result of kernel uploads I accepted
> as SRUs, and don't wish to repeat the experience), and that I did not
> feel I had the authority to accept it myself.  However, I said that I
> was happy for the kernel team to raise it with the technical board who
> can overrule me, and that I would take part in the discussion there but
> abstain from a vote.
>
> My suggestion is still that the kernel team should raise this with the
> TB.  That body has varied the SRU rules for special cases in the past,
> but as a single SRU team member (or for that matter a single TB member)
> I don't feel that I can do so to this extent.
>
> Regards,
>

Colin - I certainly hope you haven't been dragged over the coals anytime 
recently. We (the kernel team) have worked hard to fix bugs while not 
abusing the SRU process. The current stable release manager is a fanatic 
about following SRU policy :)

I am somewhat reluctant to bring this before the TB because I don't 
really believe this is an abuse of the SRU policy (that, and I'm 
abysmally slow on IRC). My own rational bias tells me that the spirit of 
the SRU policy is to cause no runtime regressions on our users 
computers. If we can prove that the packages produced by the common 
debian infrastructure are identical to the previous upload, then there 
can be no regressions.

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com