Stable Release Updates policy

[Reinhard Tartler]

Jordan Mantha <mantha at ubuntu.com> writes:


> What about having a MOTU/SRU/Testing wiki page with a brief explination
> of what we desire  from testers. The url could be included in the SRU
> bug ( "Please test this proposed update. For more information on how and
> what to test please see <SRU/Testing> " )

I agree. For UVF, I have prepared a template in my tomboy, which reads like
this:

----
This report lacks information we need to decide on this UVF exception
request. Please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Processes/UVF for more
information, which pieces of information we need to process this report.
----

I'd suggest to adapt some template like this for incomplete SRUs reports
as well.


>> UWN is a good idea. Perhaps there could be a section named "SRUs under
>> investigation - please help with testing."
> Yes, perhaps if we have enough material of interest to people, we can
> produce a little MOTU weekly report that would include SRUs, current bug
> stats (how many open, how many new), and perhaps status of various MOTU
> activities (merges/syncs left). It could be very factual and not as
> "fun" as our old MOTU Reports but it might help MOTUs stay aware of
> what's going on in general and it would be an easy resource for UWN,
> Fridge, dev people to see what MOTU's up too.

I'd love to see such an report with numbers to get an idea how much of
activity as actually going on in universe. Unfortunately, I don't have
enough time and energy to do such reports myself :(

> If people think it's worthwhile I can work on this a bit as I'm
> interested in creating task lists and other, IMO, useful things for
> MOTUs and Hopefuls to see what needs to be done and what our status is.
> If a whole MOTU report is too much then maybe somebody in the SRU team
> can do a weekly SRU report for this list. That wouldn't be too time
> consuming I don't think. What do you guys think?

I absolutely agree. If you can, please start such a report, and we'll
see how it works out. I hope that I (and fellow MOTUs as well) can
dedicate some time to contribute to such an weekly report.

> The only other comment I have on the  SRU policy is that I think we
> should also allow SRUs for uninstallable or unusable packages. I've seen
> quite a few cases where we found out a package is totally broken
> (segfault or similar) only after a release.

Yes. But even those 'easy target' should get properly reviewed in order
to prevent regression in other (most probably depending)
packages. Espc. if it gets to build-dependencies things get fuzzy quite
quickly.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4