Ideas for improving the release process

Daniel van Vugt daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
Thu Feb 18 01:56:17 UTC 2016


We don't need a new definition. Just that if there are open critical 
bugs, it would be a good idea to familiarise ourselves with them before 
proceeding with the release. Because someone has marked it as critical 
for some reason.

Tangentially I'm reminded of the wider Ubuntu problem with "Fix 
Released" not being what new users would expect. We mark bugs as "Fix 
Released" in Ubuntu even if the Ubuntu series the fix is "released" in 
is 6 months away from being actually released. But that's a limitation 
of Launchpad right now.


On 18/02/16 09:47, Kevin Gunn wrote:
> the interesting thing is when you create a new vernacular within a team
> - the rest of the world thinks you're saying Schedule to fix soon.
> instead of
> Fix now or as soon as possible.
> and the rest of the world has no way to tell you Fix now or as soon as
> possible.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Daniel van Vugt
> <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     It's less of an issue if we also remember to review release branches
>     before top approving them. In that case, hopefully code reviewers
>     will also check for open critical bugs and mention them.
>
>     But yeah I feel we're not utilizing the importance field if we're
>     allowing critical bugs to remain open without anyone even checking
>     on them during the release process.
>
>     BTW, I demoted the remaining ones to High yesterday so all criticals
>     are now resolved :)
>
>
>     On 17/02/16 21:48, Kevin Gunn wrote:
>
>         So are you both tied to the idea of using Critical/High for this?
>         as the lp definition/intimations for Critical/High don't really
>         match
>         the "blocker" use, would you be ok with using a tag "blocker"
>         instead?
>         can't see how a tag is any more costly and gets the job done all
>         the same.
>
>         ultimately the call is Stephen's.
>         If you choose the Critical/High....just needs to be a) outlined
>         somewhere & b) added to the release instructions like duflu
>         originally
>         asked.
>
>         br,kg
>
>
>         On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Stephen M. Webb
>         <stephen.webb at canonical.com <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com>
>         <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com
>         <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com>>> wrote:
>
>              On 16-02-16 08:08 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>              > If a critical bug isn't blocking a release I guess it
>         should be demoted to High.
>              >
>              > We need some simple threshold that doesn't require the
>         reader to understand the details of each bug. Just that "if
>              > importance >= critical then don't release". And there's
>         no other level we can use for that other than critical (or
>              > 'high' later as the project matures).
>
>              I have to agree with this.  If the bug is not critical
>         enough to
>              block a release, it shouldn't be classed as critical.
>
>              --
>              Stephen M. Webb  <stephen.webb at canonical.com
>         <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com>
>              <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com
>         <mailto:stephen.webb at canonical.com>>>
>
>              --
>              Mir-devel mailing list
>         Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
>         <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>         <mailto:Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>>
>              Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the Mir-devel mailing list