Readjusting SRU review process

Clint Byrum clint at
Fri May 17 17:07:57 UTC 2013

Excerpts from Martin Pitt's message of 2013-05-13 14:18:01 -0700:
> Hello SRU team,
> the Tech board recently received a proposal to forego the review of
> -proposed uploads and directly accept them into -proposed:
> In today's TB meeting there was unanimous agreement that this is not a
> flaw in the defined SRU process, but a flaw in its execution. We do
> not want to give up peer review for what goes into stable releases,
> and rather want to address the workflow problem in the SRU team. Does
> that match your feeling as well, or do you feel differently?
> There are obviously problems with getting timely reviews at the
> moment: many items in the precise and quantal queue are one to two
> months old already, and even raring's queue has rather simple SRUs
> which are already three weeks old.
> It seems the regular reviewing days got dropped some time ago. How is
> the reviewing process currently meant to work, and what do you see as
> the reasons that it doesn't? Would reintroducing regular review days
> help against them never turning into your focus otherwise, or have
> they been ineffective as well? Mabye the team is even too big now for
> anyone to feel sufficient responsibility for doing reviews?
> Please don't consider this as personal criticism; we just need to
> figure out a modus that actually works.

Just to be clear, doing SRU's for Ubuntu has become a "free time" activity
for me, and not part of my day job, so I only find myself getting to it
about once a month.

My opinion is that we need to streamline and promote the microrelease
exception process. The goal should be that SRU reviewers are only manually
reviewing packaging changes and patches for bad upstreams.

More information about the technical-board mailing list