Micro release Exception for Nova, Swift, Glance, and Keystone

Martin Pitt martin.pitt at ubuntu.com
Wed May 16 06:31:32 UTC 2012

Hello Clint,

Clint Byrum [2012-05-15 12:49 -0700]:
> So I think I understand what happened here then. I don't think it was
> at all clear that evidence of a large suite of test runs was needed or
> asked for.

Test suite or a manual test plan, either way. Anything that gives us a
reasonable confidence of regression testing.

> Perhaps there was just a disconnect between expectations. It
> appeared to me that the expectation was we'd finish a few SRU uploads
> of the relevant packages *with the usual SRU process*. With 38 bugs and
> very few explicit test cases, that just didn't happen.

Ah, I indeed misunderstood this. I thought that was going to be a test
for how an "usual" MRE would work. As you say, it's very difficult and
in any case very time consuming to re-verify 38 bugs which already got
tested by upstream anyway.

> The upstream policy is pretty strict and gated with a fair amount of
> regression tests. We also have our own CI lab running against the dev
> release of Ubuntu. Perhaps we need to have the CI lab pull from proposed
> when there is an upload, and verify that it all works.

That sounds good indeed.


Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

More information about the technical-board mailing list