SRU's please

[Luca Falavigna]

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

John Dong ha scritto:
|> So here's my straw-man's plan to get going: Fix stuff in SRU's and
drop the
|> current requirement to have intrepid fixed first, until intrepid
actually
|> opens. Tag each upgrade, which gets accepted by the SRU team
|> with "needs-fix-intrepid", so that we can later apply the fix for
intrepid as
|> well.
|>
|> What do you think? More important, motu-sru: is that OK for you?
|
| A workflow similar to this is okay with me, or any other workflow that
allows us
| to track the state of Intrepid. What I personally propose is to
augment the SRU
| bug description with a "Course of action for Intrepid" section that
explains
| what should be done for Intrepid (i.e. fix already in Debian, a
sync/merge will
| do, new upstream version X.Y.Z should be grabbed, the patch should be
| front-ported, etc)

Sounds good to me.
Since we will ship 8.04.1 soon (June 3rd [1]), it would be advisable to
focus on Hardy SRU candidates to have packages in -updates ASAP.

P.S. Due to a ISP switch, I have been mostly offline for some time and
this will last for a couple of weeks, I apologize for this.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyReleaseSchedule

- --
Luca Falavigna
Ubuntu MOTU Developer
GPG Key: 0x86BC2A50
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgVd0QACgkQnXjXEYa8KlD0lQCeLfAhowj8Xj4iDOv2tz8uHQJ8
X9YAnj7F8QOOHwVJ5fQFCH4HHu+45t6V
=hlTJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----