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

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at
Tue Nov 20 13:56:52 GMT 2007

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 07:22, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.

I think that the goals are consistent.  The trick is how we instantiate the 
goal in policy and procedure.

The old policy of motu-sru approving placed too high a barrier to entry, 
primarily due to manpower issues in Universe (IIRC).  The current policy of 
allowing any MOTU to upload based on their judgement places it too low.

The trick now if finding the correct balance.  Just placing increased controls 
is not sufficient to ensure uploads to -proposed will be good.  The only 
actual regression in a -proposed upload I've helped people get out from under 
recently (downgrade back to the published version) was in Main.

Scott K

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list