On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:05:03PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le 13/06/2012 21:46, Kees Cook a écrit : > >The upstream requirements and test suite requirements are very nicely > >met, but without a demonstrable history of successful Ubuntu SRUs, > >I think it's premature to grant an MRE. > Hey Kees, > > So to summarize: > - we have regression in precise and some unfixed data loss bugs > - we have a SRU ready to address those (new upstream point release) > - the SRU team is not wanting to review that update since we don't > have SRU rules compliant tracking for every single commit in the > update and they suggested to apply for MRE > - the TB teem is not wanting to grand a MRE > - the libreoffice maintainer position is that libreoffice is too > complex to "cherry pick" the fixes we need in a reasonable timeframe > while assuring we don't break thing (he trusts upstream testing of > the whole update over what a cherry pick in Ubuntu would provide) > > What do you suggest as a way out of this situation?
It needs to be solved with the SRU team, IMO. My take on the MRE process is that it represents a recognition from the TB that past SRUs have been so successful that there is no reason for the SRU team to examine future SRUs. It wasn't designed as a way to bypass the quality controls of the SRU process. Currently, it sounds like the SRU process for LO isn't working, and I feel that's a separate problem. I think Colin's suggestions on improving this are probably a good first step. -Kees -- Kees Cook -- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
