SRU policy for universe (was Re: Pending SRU Request; What to do?)

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:55:29PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Stefan Potyra [2007-11-19 13:47 +0100]:
> > Well, the current SRU policy for universe was to have a very low entry barrier 
> > for -proposed (aiming that archive admins should basically only check the 
> > sanity of the version, due to a LP bug not being able to delete packages from 
> > the -proposed queues)
> 
> Side note: we can do that now.
> 
> >  and to have testing being performed as the main 
> > reviewing measure. This means that no peer review for actual updates would 
> > happen, unless archive admins would perform additional checks prior to the 
> > migration from -proposed to -updates.
> > 
> > The change was somewhat drastic from very picky reviews by motu-sru to no 
> > reviews for universe SRUs at all. The goal of this change was to encourage 
> > more SRUs being done (as the strict policy we had before seemed to have 
> > scared MOTUs away) and to improve the throughput of SRUs.
> 
> There seem to be some fundamental philosophic differences here. You
> say that MOTUs want more SRUs, no entry barrier to -proposed, and
> -proposed being the play- and testing ground.

For the sake of sanity, we should be consistent between main and universe.
If what MOTU wants is a more liberal update stream, providing new packages
which aren't necessarily appropriate for all users, then they should use
-backports instead.  Users who sign up for backports know that they are
getting more leading edge software with more potential disruption.

-- 
 - mdz