Documenting "exceptional" MREs

[Brian Murray]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:50:51AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#New_upstream_microreleases
> 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?

I'm not sure this will answer your questions but here is pitti's
announcement email from the time the changes were made:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2015-September/001152.html

I looked at this transition a bit ago and felt like it could use some
clarification.

--
Brian Murray