bzr maverick srus now qa'd

[Martin Pool]

Thanks.  I've added text to <
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions#preview>>
on the grounds it is already the intended policy.

Martin



On 18 May 2011 15:36, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>
> +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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20110518/3b228f1e/attachment.html>