What about the non-critical bugs?

Bryce Harrington bryce at canonical.com
Sun Mar 7 22:22:30 GMT 2010

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 08:07:03PM +0100, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Il giorno Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:20:00 +0100
> David Henningsson <diwic at ubuntu.com> ha scritto:
> > Perhaps adding a lucid-smallbugfixes (that should be opt-in, not
> > opt-out, or there wouldn't be a difference between that and
> > lucid-updates) or somehow have one or many ppas that we dedicate to
> > this purpose?
> SRU process [1] states that bugs that "have an obviously safe patch and
> affect an application rather than critical infrastructure packages
> (like X.org or the kernel)" could be candidate for an update.
> When I was a motu-sru member, I approved several non-critical bugs if
> more users required such a fix, and nobody complained as long as the
> test phase was conducted correctly.
> I think the best approach would be keeping the same SRU process as we
> already have, eventually extending it to other bugs with high user
> interaction (i.e. papercut bugs).
> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

Sometimes most of the work is just identifying what specific patch fixed
the issue.  Sometimes this requires doing bisection searches in git or
bzr, which is a bit too technical for a lot of ordinary people.  So
perhaps a good approach would be to organize a group of volunteers to
get skilled in these techniques and, when they can reproduce a given
problem, use it to help isolate the fix.

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list