Readjusting SRU review process

[Brian Murray]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:18:01PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello SRU team,
> 
> the Tech board recently received a proposal to forego the review of
> -proposed uploads and directly accept them into -proposed:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-May/001613.html
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-May/001618.html
> 
> 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.

I'm not sure the length of the queue is actually indicative of what
needs to be reviewed as we tend to ask people to add missing
information, e.g. Regression Potential, to the bug description rather
than rejecting the upload.

--
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/20130516/7d547eb8/attachment.pgp>