Changes to the SRU processes?

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Brian,

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:36:53PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 04:33:59PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > > Le 17/07/2012 22:09, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> > > >This sounds to me like something that could have caught the recent problems,
> > > >so +1 from me.  Double +1 since it's a solution that doesn't result in more
> > > >random bug mail for me.

> > > One issue with those is the number of false positives, that's not
> > > because a bug is opened by a proposed user that it's a regression,
> > > it's likely that proposed users will as any user report issues when
> > > they hit them and that most are not specific to the SRU they are
> > > running...

> > I went ahead and whipped something up to search for bugs from people
> > running a package version from -proposed and have attached the results.
> > I searched for bugs with apport tags and precise tags about every source
> > package in precise-proposed opened since the package was published and
> > then searched the description for the package version in -proposed - I
> > only found four bugs so I'm not too worried about false positives yet.

> Expanding upon this work I think the way forward is to have a bot that
> searches for bugs from people running a package version from -proposed
> that then tags a bug in the set of bugs fixed by that SRU
> verification-failed.  In addition the bot will comment on the bug tagged
> v-failed about the bug using the version of the package from -proposed.
> In the event that the bug report from someone using the -proposed
> package really isn't a regression we can tag that bug 'bot-stop-nagging'
> and it won't be considered a regression.

> Here is an example of the action that would be taken for precise:

> Release: precise
>   LP: #1030099 re the SRU for empathy made LP: #1017463
>     verification-failed
>   LP: #1030845 re the SRU for linux made LP: #1022747
>     verification-failed
>   The SRU for package lo-menubar already has a verification-failed bug
>     in LP: #754562 so a comment was made
>   LP: #1027970 re the SRU for udev made LP: #1017715 verification-failed
>   LP: #1029371 re the SRU for unity made LP: #987156 verification-failed
>   LP: #1029788 was skipped due to the tag bot-stop-nagging
>   LP: #1029826 re the SRU for vlc made LP: #995003 verification-failed

> 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.

This all makes sense to me.  Thanks for working on this!

-- 
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/20120731/ea9a7491/attachment.pgp>