bzr maverick srus now qa'd

[Mark Shuttleworth]

+1 from me.

On 18/05/11 13:26, Martin Pool wrote:
> Elsewhere, on 26 April 2011 08:13, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> Hello Martin,
>>
>> Martin Pool [2011-04-21 18:48 +1000]:
>>> On the whole I'm not sure [manually verifying all SRU bugs in bzr] was a good use of time: I think we tend
>>> to have problems not so much when we fail to fix the bug but rather
>>> when we break something else in doing so.  Manually testing the bug is
>>> probably not going to catch that, and is probably redundant with
>>> testing we did and the original reporter did when it was merged
>>> upstream.
>> I agree. Indeed I'm much more concerned about regression testing,
>> which is of course hard to describe in general for all SRUs. So we
>> usually resort to minimal patches and have reporters test the actual
>> package in a real environment. Strictly speaking this is not true
>> regression testing, but the next best thing to what we can reasonably
>> achieve.
>>
>> In the bzr case however, we can do proper regression testing, because
>> it already has a huge test suite. Indeed the MRE says:
>>
>>  conditions: test suite running during package build from Ubuntu
>>  11.04 on; SRU verification should run test suite in installed sytem
>>
>> From my POV doing the latter and then reporting back to one of the
>> bugs with "test suite showed no regressions for the package in
>> foo-proposed" would suffice here. I think that was the original intent
>> when we discussed the MRE.
>>
>> We handle things in a similar way for other MREs like postgresql or
>> Firefox: We run standard tests (manual or automatic suites) for
>> signing them off.
> I would like to ask the tech board to approve an edit
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions>
> to say something along these lines, in the interests of people getting
> changes without wasted effort or inconsistent handling.
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>