Readjusting SRU review process

[Brian Murray]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 06:17:48PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Steve Langasek [2013-05-24 13:19 -0700]:
> > There are definitely times when I have a sense that the SRUs in the queue
> > are not the best use of our time.  Every developer has their own idea of
> > what's important enough to SRU, and it's difficult as an SRU team member to
> > be in the position of arbitrating, and rejecting uploads because /you/ don't
> > think they're important.  It's also difficult to actually /know/ what's
> > important enough for an SRU when it's sitting in front of you in the queue -
> > some of this only shows up in aggregate after the fact, when we see that
> > -proposed is full of packages that no one has bothered to verify.
> 
> That's actually a very good point. It seems that over time we have
> become rather lenient about which kind of fixes we allow as SRUs. My
> gut feeling is that the current level is just about right for LTSes,
> but especially with the deemphasized role of the non-LTS releases we
> should perhaps set the bar much higher again for those?

I will sometimes sponsor SRUs for new contributors as I feel that this
(backporting a fix from the development release) is an easier way (than
trying to fix a bug yourself) to get started in Ubuntu development.
However, I still require these to have a test case, etc...

--
Brian Murray
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20130604/cf1c61f0/attachment.pgp>