Generalizing SRU policy for special cases/MREs
marc.deslauriers at canonical.com
Tue Sep 15 15:43:00 UTC 2015
On 2015-09-02 05:28 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 04:42:26 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> over the years our SRU policy  has accumulated a fair amount of
>> special cases  and exceptions for new microreleases . There is a
>> lot of commonality between them, mostly related to automated testing.
>> Since most of these were added, a lot of projects have moved to a CI
>> based development model; this includes Ubuntu itself, which is now
>> running package integration tests for both the development series 
>> and SRUs .
>> The attached patch against  is my proposal for updating the SRU
>> policy accordingly. It mostly extends the "When" section for the cases
>> that we've seen in practice, and reduces  to just documentation
>> about three packages (kernel, landscape, tzdata), which don't include
>> a changed policy, just a "how to update this".
>> This should go together with dropping . A lot of the existing
>> entries in  now fall under the revised "New upstream microreleases"
>> policy (e. g. postfix, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, firefox, mesa), and others
>> have been obsolete for quite a while (Ubuntu One, bzr). The section at
>> the bottom ("SRU verification for Micro Release Exceptions") was
>> included into the main  documentation (in spirit, not verbatim). I
>> believe that the page  has never been very well maintained, as
>> things become obsolete, there is no clear distinction between
>> provisional and full exceptions, etc. Thus I believe setting a general
>> policy and instead asking for linking to the QA policy in SRU bugs is
>> a better and more dynamic approach.
>> Comments, language improvements, etc much appreciated!
>> P.S. I still have a TODO item to propose an amendment for introducing
>> new features into LTS, such as the recently proposed "Ubuntu FAN" .
>> I will do this after this cleanup got discussed/improved/accepted.
>>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
>>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Special_Cases
>>  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions
>> es.html  http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
>>  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-July/002122.html
> I think this is generally a good change. The one suggestion I have is to
> adjust the "New upstream microreleases" section slightly. Starting with the
> last line added in that hunk of the patch:
> ... it is also generally acceptable to upload new microreleases (~ubuntu-sru
> will make the final determination). The upstream QA process must be
> documented/demonstrated and linked from the SRU tracking bug. In other cases
> where such upstream automatic testing is not available, exceptions must still
> be approved by at least one member of the Ubuntu Technical Board.
> The reason I leave this in is that the proposed language doesn't cover all the
> current micro-release exceptions. Postfix is an example where we have tests,
> but they don't fit the listed criteria, but I am completely comfortable with
> the mix of upstream fix policy in point releases and our own tests being
> adequate QA to make the MRE that's in place appropriate.
I think this is a reasonable request.
More information about the technical-board