motu-sru renewal?

Luca Falavigna dktrkranz at
Wed Aug 6 16:29:43 BST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
> I'd also suggest we consider process changes to make it less overwhelming.  
> Right now it seems like motu-sru is expected to look at any bug that anyone 
> wants fixed in a stable release.  I think it'd be better if motu-sru didn't 
> get involved until after someone had decided they were going to try and fix 
> it.

Current policy [1] states that a SRU requires these elements:

1. Impact on users and regression potential discussion
2. Patch/Debdiff for stable releases packages
3. Detailed test cases to perform tests on proposed updates

Sometimes these elements are scattered on bug reports and it's difficult
to collect them to have a clear understanding of the problem. It happens
bugs lack some or all of the above required elements, this makes
motu-sru work extremely difficult since members need to keep in touch
with reporter or getting informations from upstream bugtracker/VCS. For
instance, I'm totally blind with bugs similar to [2], we usually trust
reporter due to his knowledge of the package, but peer review is usually
not provided there.

If reported was *really* interested to have a patch as a SRU, I think
providing required informations would not be a pain at all, leaving bug
marked as Incomplete until required informations are gathered (as in
motu-release [3], IIRC) will surely help motu-sru work. This will become
extremely important if MOTUs are allowed to do archive administration
tasks in the future.



- --
 . ''`.      Luca Falavigna
 : :'  :  Ubuntu MOTU Developer
 `. `'`     Debian Maintainer
   `-      GPG Key: 0x86BC2A50
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list