Stable Release Updates policy
minghua-list at sbcglobal.net
Sat Nov 11 16:54:10 GMT 2006
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:02:42AM -0800, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 09.11.2006, 09:21 +1300 schrieb Andrew Mitchell:
> > The intent of having both was to make sure that any regressions are
> > caught by people who have time & the ability to upload a fix quickly, if
> > needed. Staying as bug contact, rather than subscribing to the bug
> > directly, means that the SRU team would be able to see any further
> > regressions that get reported as separate bugs.
> I don't think that's a task for the motu-sru team. I expect the team to
> be busy enough as it is already.
While I can see the necessity of having more than one person (i.e., the
MOTU who proposed/acked the SRU) to stay as the bug contact, I agree
that MOTU-SRU team will be busy enough with the approving work.
Therefore I think requiring them to be the bug contact of all the
packages they approved hurts more than helps, especially that, as far as
I understand, currently there is no way in malone to specify which
version/release the bug is about.
I have another idea -- what about forming another team to act as
MOTU-SRU bug triagers? This team should be (automatically?) set as bug
contact for all SRUed packages, and look at the bug reports, then
contact MOTU-SRU team and the MOTU who did the upload if they think the
bug is caused by the update.
I care about stable updates a lot, and while I am not confident to be in
the MOTU-SRU team, I would be happy to be in such a bug triaging team
and help what I can. Anybody with me?
More information about the Ubuntu-motu