Documenting "exceptional" MREs

Robie Basak robie.basak at
Mon Jul 24 10:50:51 UTC 2017
says: "In other cases where such upstream automatic testing is not
available, exceptions must still be approved by at least one member of
the Ubuntu Technical Board."

So if the SRU team determine that a proposed new upstream microrelease
SRU does not meet the testing requirement, we still need to get a TB
member's +1.

This bit for gjs just now[1]. My conclusion is that the TB had
previously already granted the +1, so I documented it[2] and proceeded
on that basis.

But it means that do end up with "MREs" that must be documented since
otherwise they do not meet the current SRU policy as it is written.

I thought I'd point this out, as it seems like a surprising result of
the current SRU policy, especially given that all the previously
documented TB-approved MREs were removed when the policy was changed.

Is this all intentional? Or should I be handling these differently?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-release mailing list