Changes to the SRU processes?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:22:36PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 31/07/2012 21:36, Brian Murray a écrit :

> >Oh and if one of the SRU bugs is already tagged
> >verification-failed it'll just add a comment to that bug. Barring
> >any objections I'll set this up this week. --

> Thanks for working on that. I'm not sure I agree with that though,
> quite some people run proposed and do notice issues in softwares,
> while doing SRU testing, which are not regressions, I feel like it
> will create confusion and makes harder to know which bugs have a
> confirmed regression and those which just got tagged by side effect
> of bug filing.

> What about adding a new tag verification-potential-regression for
> those to indicate that the uploader should check those new tickets
> before the packages got copied to -updates? I don't like to add yet
> another tag but that one should be only added by a bot and would
> avoid creating confusion over what verification-failed

The intent of this process is to ensure that as soon as a potential
regression has been identified, the SRU process is stopped until someone can
manually review the facts.  The verification-failed tag fits that perfectly,
I don't think we need a separate tag.

In general we should not have packages sitting in -proposed that are
verification-failed - the SRU team should be driving the list of such
packages to zero on a regular basis.  So there shouldn't really be any
confusion here.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20120801/0acf0d16/attachment.pgp>