Revisions to the Backports process

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 12:01:53PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 3:57 PM Mattia Rizzolo <mapreri at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > * In the testing point, I dropped this:
> >      This testing should cover as much of the package functionality as
> >      possible, not just any missing functionality or feature that you
> >      are requesting the backport for.
> >   The reason being that doing that it's a *huge* burden.  It totally
> >   doesn't feel so while writing, and it could even be considered the
> >   proper thing to do.  But I'm sure not even us 3 would ever bother
> >   doing that.  Imagine having to test every single devscripts and
> >   ubuntu-dev-tools script for all releases I'm going to backport the
> >   package in.  Or having to test as many entry points of a library
> >   package.  That's just not going to happen, so let's not lie on the
> >   process page either.
> 
> +1, I totally agree there are some processes with "requirements" that
> are effectively ignored most of the time - and you're right that
> testing *everything* in a backported package is unreasonable and
> unlikely. So any manual testing would likely be up to the backport
> requestor, to verify their specific need and/or whatever cursory
> manual tests they want to run.

Good.

> We should state that any existing automated tests should be run
> though, right? Specifically, any build-time tests, and any
> autopkgtests?

Alright.
Added:
       * In particular, make sure to run any build-time tests and autopkgtests **before** uploading.


> > * "and/or if you are unfamiliar with preparing packages for upload" -
> >   I'm not dropping that, but honestly, if we have such people in our
> >   ACLs I'd feel much more comfortable if we had their rights revoked…
> 
> +1 yep, no need for that added text - anyone with ACL absolutely
> should know how to prepare things.

Heh, dropped, thank you :P

> > * I added that "special cases" section I already sent to this ML earlier
> >   in the month.
> 
> +1 for this, however I'd suggest we use a term other than 'blacklist';
> maybe 'denylist' or 'disallowed'

Despite being mildly bothered by all this wave of politically
corectness, whatever.  I replcaed it with "forbidden" stuff.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20211103/a4ed021f/attachment.sig>