Thursday, 19 May 2016

Re: SRU never reviewed, why/how do we avoid that next time?

Le 19/05/2016 09:55, Martin Pitt a écrit :
> It appears to me that the same happened for wily: The wily SRU was
> uploaded on Oct 28, but the xenial package only on Nov 11. So back
> then the SRU wasn't accepted because of "devel first", and then it
> probably feel into the mental category of "this upload has been
> sitting here for several weeks, there must be something bad with it".

Thanks Martin, that's indeed a possible explanation. While the "upload
to devel first" usually makes sense as a rule I'm unsure it should be
enforced that strictly, or at least we should accomodate for special
cases/situations imho.

Libreoffice (to stay on that example) tends to exercice new compiler
versions/toolchain in challenging ways and it's not uncommon that
getting it to build on a new serie takes some time. Also it's often the
case that we aim at landing a new upstream serie on the new distro (same
for GNOME) and that we prefer to get that going rather than spending
time trying to get the old version to build with e.g a new gcc.

I think that if we are confident that the fixes/updated version are
going to land but just are taking a bit of time there is no real reasons
to block bugfixes to reach users on the stable serie...

Does that make sense?

Sebastien Bacher

ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: