application: main upload rights for xserver-xorg-video-geode
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Wed Sep 9 17:03:00 BST 2009
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:31:54 +0200 Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 18:04 +0300 schrieb Martin-Éric Racine:
>> I think one specific aspect that remains unclear to me is the
>> distinction between what should go into an SRU, versus what should
>> preferably go into a backport. Right now, the impression I get is that
>> backports should be avoided, if only because the backport team has a
>> very nasty stance that one should "at least *try* getting your fix
>> approved as an SRU first and only come to us if it was denied, or else
>> we're gonna ignore you and kill baby kittens." That feels vague and
>> pointlessly rude. It also projects a rather sad idea of Ubuntu's
>> willingness to backport anything. I wonder why.
>I get the feeling you got the wrong impression here. We are very picky
>about what gets into an SRU, but are more lax about backports.
Backports are not for getting critical bug fixes delivered to users. Because the backports process is easier to get through (it's not enabled by default and so the test requirements are not as thorough), allowing SRU candidate fixes into backports would undermine the SRU process and deprive users who haven't opt-ed in to the more aggressive approach of backports of the fixes.
Personally, I don't find following the tech board direction for backports "nasty" at all.
More information about the Motu-council