[SRU discussion] Renaming the 'Regression Potential' section

[Iain Lane]

A while ago I actually wrote some content for this, but I failed to 
follow up to this thread to push it forward. Sorry about that and thanks 
for the reminder.

Here it is:

Proposed change to the wiki page:

  https://git.launchpad.net/~laney/+git/sru-regressions/commit/?id=91ebf1c2b65cb77637cdf1c8fe6339bfde64288a

Proposed email to send to ubuntu-devel:

  https://git.launchpad.net/~laney/+git/sru-regressions/tree/email.txt

If someone from the SRU team is willing to help now I think that would 
be the best way to move this forward. Feel free to take my text and edit 
it, ask for peer review if you want, and then ideally commit the change 
to the wiki and send the mail.

Cheers,
Iain

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 04:27:46PM +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey there,
> 
> I hit another of those bugs where the well intended controbutor spent
> time writing a 'low <rational of why it was tested upstream and
> downstream>', any chance to see the discussion leading to a conclusion.
> 
> I was thinking maybe something around the line of
> 'Regression Testing Focus'
> it's a bit longer but you can't reply 'low' to it...
> 
> Cheers,
> Sebastien Bacher
> 
> Le 30/07/2020 à 13:40, Dan Streetman a écrit :
> > +1 this is incorrectly filled out most of the time, or at least it
> > feels that way. I'm not sure what exact wording will be clearer,
> > though.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:36 AM Iain Lane <laney at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> Hiya,
> >>
> >> I often come across SRU bugs from developers that seem to treat the
> >> Regression Potential section as a place to argue why their upload is not
> >> risky and should be accepted. Like
> >>
> >>   [ Regression Potential ]
> >>   Low. This only changes X Y Z.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to bother repeating the arguments for why that's wrong. I
> >> find the wiki page
> >>
> >>   https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/#SRU_Bug_Template
> >>
> >> quite clear on what's needed. But I think the message hasn't managed to
> >> get through to everybody yet, which to me indicates that we haven't yet
> >> achieved a universal culture of critically assessing our own work.
> >> Thinking "what if I'm wrong and this update is bad, where might that
> >> happen?"
> >>
> >> My *straw man* proposal is to rename the section to something like
> >> 'Where problems could occur' or something more explicit than what we
> >> currently have.
> >>
> >> This is obviously partly/mostly a problem that the expectations haven't
> >> gotten through to people, so while I think we should rename, any change
> >> will need to be communicated so that people know about it and then
> >> enforced by the SRU team for a little while.
> >>
> >> Thoughts welcome.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Iain Lane                                  [ iain at orangesquash.org.uk ]
> >> Debian Developer                                   [ laney at debian.org ]
> >> Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney at ubuntu.com ]
> >> --
> >> Ubuntu-release mailing list
> >> Ubuntu-release at lists.ubuntu.com
> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
> 
> -- 
> Ubuntu-release mailing list
> Ubuntu-release at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release

-- 
Iain Lane                                  [ iain at orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer                                   [ laney at debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney at ubuntu.com ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20201105/054c2ce7/attachment.sig>