>
> On 2021-07-20 13:58, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > Yes, objection here. The backports pocket is still in use.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, as discussed in much greater length in
> > other posts in this thread, the sole problem with the backports
> > process is lack of time for the Ubuntu Backports Team to actually
> > review uploads to the -backports pocket.
> >
> > If that's the case, then the Canonical Sustaining Engineering Group
> > is happy to take that over (since 'sustaining' the stable releases
> > is...our job), please feel free to ping me about ACLs and process
> > tooling for approving -backports uploads and we'll start reviewing
> > the queues.
>
> That sounds promising, Dan.
>
> As regards uploads in the queues, I had a quick look yesterday. I found
> one item in bionic and four ones in focal. But only one (1) item had a
> reference to a bug report with the expected justification, test results etc.
>
> But then we have all the backport requests which are not yet uploaded:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bionic-backports
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/focal-backports
>
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports> gives the impression that the
> uploads should be carried out by an ~ubuntu-backporters member in
> connection with the review.
>
> So if the Canonical Sustaining Engineering Group steps up — which is
> excellent, of course — there still seems to be room for clarification of
> the process.
>
> * Who can/should upload?
>
> * Should sponsorship be sought for uploads to the -backports queues?
definitely good points to clarify, we should probably move any
clarifications over to rbasak's new thread
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
