Micro release Exception for Nova, Swift, Glance, and Keystone
martin.pitt at ubuntu.com
Wed May 16 06:31:32 UTC 2012
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