SRU quality and preventing regressions

Dimitri John Ledkov xnox at
Fri Apr 21 10:20:51 UTC 2017

On 21 April 2017 at 00:46, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at> wrote:
> Hi Robie,
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 01:36:26PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
>> 1) What package name and version string was tested (saying "the one from
>> xenial-proposed" isn't enough for me, as this is where we see things
>> going wrong as that version can change).
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:39:07PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:28:39PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> > requirement ... and indeed it's not in the wiki. So we have at least one
>> > example where something checked the wiki documentation as a reference,
>> > wiki also is easy enough to edit so there is no real reason to not do it.
>> Thanks. I don't think I'm actually suggesting any change in policy here
>> - it seems to me that what I'm asking for isn't consistently written
>> everywhere even though it is actually current policy (because it has
>> always* been asked for in at least one place). So I'll JFDI and edit
>> everything for clarity, including the wiki, unless someone objects.
> FTR I do consider your point 1) to be a policy change, and not one I'm
> sanguine about.  We struggle to get SRUs through the verification process
> today, and I don't think raising further barriers significantly improves the
> outcomes for our users but /would/ slow things down by requiring further
> round trips.

I think 1) was due failure to validate a complex SRU of multiple
packages.... and people were testing package version numbers from
ppa's rather than -proposed, and things got delayed by a significant
amount of time.

> You are of course right that we need to have confidence the package which
> was tested is the actual package which will be released.  But I don't think
> that means we should have a hard rule that an SRU verification comment needs
> to list the version number, because while the version in -proposed can
> change over time, in most cases it's *not* ambiguous which version was in
> -proposed when the user tested.
> What do you think about a wording such as this?:
>   - The SRU verification must clearly indicate which package was tested.
>     The most reliable way to ensure this is to list the version number of
>     the tested package.

This should be added to the SRU stock response of "Hello Reporter, or
anybody else affected..." message,

e.g. end it with:

! NB PLEASE state the package version tested in full using dpkg-query
-W $package !



More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list