SRUs and the development release

[Martin Pitt]

Iain Lane [2012-06-05 17:09 +0100]:
> Right. So the point of my mail is that I don't like to see FTBFSing
> uploads to the development release which are the result of this "must be
> fixed in the development release" policy.

Right, that's just a waste and pointless.

> I think the SRU policy actually can be modified to make this the case;
> change point 1 to indicate that, when the fix isn't available yet (this
> means built and working), there should be a clear plan as to how it will
> shortly become available.

Sounds good to me as a policy amendment.

> Perhaps all such bugs should be milestoned or otherwise tracked too so
> the fix isn't lost.

That's indeed what I used to do in such cases -- add an explicit dev
release task (e. g. "quantal" right now), milestone it for e. g.
alpha-2 or beta-1, and set it to "high". That way it appears on the RC
bugs release radar, and the corresponding person will be hassled about
the fix.

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.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/20120605/099bf266/attachment.pgp>