Getting stuff backported is too hard

[Iain Lane]

Hello all,

I've just been thinking about backports. It seems (to me at least),
that the process[0] for getting stuff into -backports isn't working. It
goes a bit like this:

   1) File a bug report, do testing, prepare a new source package if
   necessary.
   2) Wait for backporting testers to test your package
   3) Eventually a backporter (member of the ~ubuntu-backporters team)
   will come along and bless your request
   4) The package is uploaded

I've found that in practice (2) doesn't happen, and the backporters
team often takes a very long time to get around to reviewing
"confirmed" bugs.

In contrast, Debian's process[1] is much more lightweight:

   1) Build and upload a package with minimal changes from the version
   you are backporting

Now, obviously there are differences between the two distros, but I
wonder if we can make our process more lightweight. I don't propose
changing the requirements for package eligibility[2], but instead the
technical hurdles.

I think that developers should be able to upload to backports if they
feel it is warranted. A bug should be filed and the backporters team
subscribed for review. Once a backport is acked, an archive admin can
then accept the upload. You'll notice that this mirrors the SRU
process which has recently evolved into something which is much easier
for developers and SRU team members alike. So the new process would
look something like:

   1) Developer decides a backport is warranted, perhaps/probably from
   user or upstream requests
   2) Developer files bug report and prepares package with minimal
   changes from the current development release
   3) Developer uploads package to $target-backports
   4) Package lands in UNAPPROVED and backport team members review from
   here
   5.1) If acked, ubuntu-archive is subscribed to ACCEPT the package
   5.2) If nacked, ubuntu-archive is subcribed to REJECT the package

This may help reduce the proliferation of unofficial backporting PPAs
that have sprung up recently, but it's not so easy to selectively
enable backports so this might require further tool support.

I'd like some feedback on whether people feel that there is a problem,
feel that backports should be used more and on my proposed
process.

Cheers,
Iain

[0]
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#Backport%20Process

[1] http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute 

[2]
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#How%20to%20request%20new%20packages
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20100731/e3d1e21d/attachment.pgp