StableReleaseUpdates page (Was: Re: Fw: [scite] Fixed Lua dynamic library loading in Ubuntu 18.04 proposed updates)

[Lukasz Zemczak]

The wiki page in the paragraph regarding SRU testing might indeed not
be entirely realistic, but it is the *recommended* way of going
forward. With my SRU hat on, I personally would never reject someone's
SRU verification just because the person performing it was the
uploader. Sure, bonus points if the verification is done by the
reporter or some unrelated person, but most of the time the uploader
is the best we can get - as you already mentioned. I wouldn't rephrase
the sentence though, as ideally we would want it to be done by someone
else. But as I always understood it, it is not a strict requirement.

What matters to me is that someone took the time to take the actual
-proposed package, installed it and ran through the test case. If I
see that's the case via the bug verification comment (and have no
doubts whether the verification was actually performed) and the
reporter doesn't seem to be 'involved', it's all good. Sometimes I do
request verification to be done by the person that has reported the
bug, but only if I see recent activity of that person on the bug.
Doesn't happen very frequently though.

Cheers,

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 22:06, Julian Andres Klode
<julian.klode at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:34:07AM -0700, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> > Nope, that's not the standard, expected procedure.  It is always better to
> > have someone else verify a fix, it's sometimes not feasible though.
> >
> > "While not ideal it is also possible for the uploader of the fix to perform
> > the verification of the package in *-proposed"
> >  - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Verification
> >
>
> OK, first of all - he SRUed that package in May.
>
> And re the The wiki page: It might say that, but it's _not_ realistic:
>
> - I've uploaded quite a few SRUs by now, and maybe a handful have been (partially)
>   verified by someone else. Partially because these people only test their
>   favorite release (and then forget to do some tagging changes, or mention
>   version numbers), so you still have to do it anyway.
>
>   In practice, people report bugs, and when you push a fix they are gone.
>
>   Waiting days, weeks, or even months so that maybe hopefully someone else
>   might review it does not work.
>
> Other random things the wiki page says and people do wrong all the time:
>
> - Basically everyone sets their tasks to "In Progress" when working
>   on it, despite "In Progress" being reserved for "fix uploaded to queue".
>
> - People set "Fix committed" when/before an upload, despite it being
>   reserved for "fix in -proposed"
>
>
> --
> debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
> ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel



-- 
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
 Foundations Team
 lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
 www.canonical.com