Proposing MIR process simplification
mdz at canonical.com
Mon Jan 11 10:24:53 GMT 2010
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:15:41AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman [2010-01-05 18:14 +0000]:
> > There is a big difference in transparency and commitment in stating the
> > facts (i.e. which requirements were met and how), rather than just saying "I
> > checked that it meets the requirements". This shouldn't be any more work,
> > since they need to follow the checklist anyway. Is there any harm in
> > stating that explicitly in the bug report?
> You mean explicitly stating "I checked the packaging,
> Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream bugs, security history, etc."?
Yes, perhaps listing the date when this was done or some relevant summary
data (e.g. reviewed these five CVEs).
> Of course there's no harm in doing this. It would again introduce the kind
> of boilerplate text which clutters the really interesting facts, but it'd
> be much smaller, of course.
It's just a suggestion, which you can take or leave as you see fit. I think
the MIR process should be a tool to help ensure that the correct checks are
always done, and if we can maintain a good confidence level while reducing
bureaucracy, I think that's progress.
More information about the ubuntu-devel