SRU shift report: 2020-09-23

Thomas Ward teward at
Thu Sep 24 12:02:23 UTC 2020

Just a heads up on a bit here...

On 9/23/20 1:41 PM, Robie Basak wrote:
> ## torbrowser-launcher (Focal)
> I helped the contributor with this one previously, and am pleased to see
> it's been sponsored. Unfortunately it's missing the LP bug reference,
> but also the contributor has since mentioned in the bug that an
> additional fix appears to be needed. It seems that the SRU needs to be
> delayed then, and I asked in the bug to confirm.
> I didn't reject this from the queue because the contributor is new to
> Ubuntu process so I didn't want to confuse them further in case it turns
> out that a reject is not needed.
> Outcome: SRU processing is blocked.
> Feedback: I could have spotted the missing bug reference myself
> previously, but didn't look throroughly as I assumed the sponsor would
> do that. When sponsoring, please check that the documented SRU process
> steps have been followed before uploading.

Original SRU 'justification' written in the bug[1] states the regression
risk is "There should be none."  As you stated elsewhere, "none" is not
a valid risk justification.

Further, they're waiting for this to be done in Debian as well (see [2])
so it does indeed need a wait on this going forward because it needs to
be fixed in another spot - that blocks SRU processing, but if we're
going to be nitpicky as we should be, you should probably "block" also
on the lack of a justification - as "there should be none" is not really
a valid potential analysis.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list