Change request in the SRU process of group

Lucas Kanashiro kanashiro at
Fri Apr 8 18:37:11 UTC 2022

Hi Steve,

Em 08/04/2022 14:30, Steve Langasek escreveu:
> Hi Lucas,
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 04:35:13PM -0300, Lucas Kanashiro wrote:
>> Hi release team,
>> A couple of days ago, I got runc SRU not accepted into focal-proposed
>> [1] because it is not following what was strictly described in the
>> group exception page [2]. After talking to mwhudson and tianon
>> (who were working on this stack before me), we noticed that this was
>> quite outdated and we have not been following what was described in the
>> Process section for a while. I made some changes to this section and the
>> content was approved by tianon. The idea behind the old process was to
>> avoid updating stable releases with version x.x.0 because the
>> upstream project at the time was not so mature, but nowadays there are
>> some pretty strong incentives to make sure their releases work (even .0
>> releases).
>> I would like to get the approval from the SRU team to make those changes
>> official. To ease the review you can find the old and the proposed
>> sections here [3]. In order to avoid any confusion I added a sentence
>> here [4] to clarify that the current content of [2] is not yet approved
>> by the SRU team.
>> Thanks in advance!
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]
> While the new language reads much nicer, one nuance that's been lost in the
> process is the idea that we don't SRU the .0 releases but wait until they've
> had a chance to fix bugs and stabilize things with a .1.  Is this a
> deliberate change, and if so, what has changed in terms of upstream practice
> or our QA that makes us think this is no longer a requirement?

Yes, the change to also accept .0 releases is what triggered this
request (in this case a .0 release of runc). After talking to tianon,
the part to avoid .0 releases was meant to be for mostly,
which at the time was not stable enough, however, this made runc get not

Regarding QA, this is more an upstream work, they have
received multiple incentives to improve the quality of their release and
since a while they are quite stable. If we prefer we can keep that
policy to avoid the backport of .0 releases of, and relax this
for containerd and runc which are more stable in general than

> If we have NOT been following the rules as stated, that is not something I
> was aware of.
Unfortunately we have not. If we get the proposed process accepted (with
some changes if needed) I'll make sure we follow it from now on.

Lucas Kanashiro

More information about the Ubuntu-release mailing list