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.
> 
> 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?

While I'm not personally affected by this too much, I can imagine that
it is demotivating to some SRU team members to spend time reviewing
debdiffs and SRU bugs only to have the package sit in -proposed
unverified for weeks.

--
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/20130524/6096c9b6/attachment.pgp>