On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:26:15PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:05:15PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > - I've uploaded quite a few SRUs by now, and maybe a handful have been (partially)
> > verified by someone else. Partially because these people only test their
> > favorite release (and then forget to do some tagging changes, or mention
> > version numbers), so you still have to do it anyway.
> >
> > In practice, people report bugs, and when you push a fix they are gone.
>
> If in doubt about testing commitment I usually try to ask reporters to
> commit to doing appropriate testing (making it clear what we need)
> before I drive an SRU "for" some particular set of users.
>
> I also don't feel guilty about letting an SRU slide because it isn't
> getting verified. The way I see it: if no users care enough to test the
> fix, then evidently nobody really needs the fix, so why should we risk
> regressing unaffected users?
>
> This obviously doesn't apply to obviously serious bugs, special cases,
> and so forth.
>
I mean, I don't really SRU other stuff I guess. Whether or not the bug
reporter is still around is basically irrelevant as we independently
agreed that the bug needs fixing.
That's different from sponsoring an SRU, where I fully expect the
sponsoree to step up to verify the fix if needed (which might often
be the reporter).
> > - Basically everyone sets their tasks to "In Progress" when working
> > on it, despite "In Progress" being reserved for "fix uploaded to queue".
>
> The docs don't reserve that status, so I always considered "In Progress"
> to be acceptable for both cases.
Well, let's just say the wiki page tells you to change it to "In Progress"
- if it was that already, it's not a change. That's how I read it.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
