SRU's please

[John Dong]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:40PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> now that hardy is out, and intrepid is still closed, it would be a perfect 
> time to get going with SRUs for hardy.
> 
> Currently, SRU's [1] have the requirement to be fixed in the development 
> version first. The main use for this is, to not introduce regressions by 
> forgetting to fix the development version. Of course we cannot do this right 
> now.
>
Agreed, I've seen some SRU's worthy of doing without waiting for Intrepid.
 
> 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)



John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080425/493085ea/attachment-0002.pgp