StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing

[Sarah Hobbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael, what in hell were you thinking?

This is utterly and totally unacceptable.  Gutsy is a stable release,
and so needs a very high level of QA.  This is precisely *why* we have
the pain of stable release updates.  You throwing untested crap in there
 highlights the lack of care you have towards our users.

Part of being a Master of the Universe, (or a Core Dev), is to know what
is reasonable to go into the archives, and what is not.  An untested
package is *never* suitable to go into a stable release (or even
proposed updates to a stable release)!

At this point, I'd like to question what we do with people who make
uploads like this.  If these uploads are repeated, I think we really
need to look at removing their upload rights, because they clearly are
not suitable for MOTU, based on their lack of care for QA.

On the other hand, if this is acceptable conduct for people in MOTU now,
perhaps we need to document that universe really is completely
unsupported, and that people should not expect it to mostly work at all.
If this is the case, I suspect a number of us will seriously consider
stepping down, or focusing exclusively on main, as MOTU's aims have
changed, and we actually care about QA.

I'd like to point out that Michael is not the only one who's been
pushing recent fixes to gutsy without testing.  These others should also
read this mail carefully, and think a little more before they upload.

As a candidate for the MOTU council, and the MOTU, I (and the rest of
MOTU, i suspect) expect better of you.  Please don't do this again.

Hobbsee

Steve Kowalik wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I'm sending this IRC snippet (my question on #ubuntu-motu) was after reading 
>> the above mail?
>>
>> [15:49] <ScottK> geser: Please tell me you didn't upload a fix to 
>> gutsy-proposed that you haven't verified works (that's what I get from your 
>> mail to the MOTU list)?
>> [15:50] <geser> ScottK: I didn't check the package myself
>> [15:50] <ScottK> geser: Did you upload it?
>> [15:50] <geser> yes
>> [15:50] <geser> ScottK: that patch comes from upstream
>> [15:51] * ScottK sort of thought testing before uploading would have been a 
>> good idea?
>>
>> I'd like a clarification of policy here (I've thought I knew for sure the 
>> right answer and been wrong before).  I thought SRUs were supposed to be 
>> tested before uploading to *-proposed.  Is that wrong?
> 
> Certainly not. The thing to keep in mind is that you are updating a
> *STABLE* release -- if you throw untested broken crap there, people
> aren't going to be very happy -- at the very least make sure what you're
> uploading builds, works, and doesn't have any regressions.
> 
> Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHHYS37/o1b30rzoURAs6HAKCuJFnIXi7BR5ZR3aNDAjP8LE1fVACeMxhp
fWhCVqISyxtJAmEjXqQqOyw=
=+x16
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----