Hello all, Steve Langasek [2015-09-17 14:28 -0700]: > The only niggling doubt that I have concerns the possibility that by setting > this policy, we are opening the floodgates to all kinds of new packages > being /allowed/ for inclusion in the stable releases, as a result DoSing the > SRU team and leaving them to apply some other de facto policy, possibly one > that is ultimately political in nature, to filter down the packages that are > allowed through.
This should remain a relative rare exception. I. o. if the SRU team feels swamped with having to check several new backported features every week, I'd definitively call this an abuse, and we'd need to revisit this paragraph. In some way this is similar to the SRUs that we've had so far: E. g. I've seen many uploads to non-LTSes for fixes which are quite frankly just a waste of everybody's (uploader, SRU team, verifying user's) time. But so far I have the impression that the large majority of SRUs is well justified, particularly to LTSes (where SRUs matter much more). > Is that a likely outcome? Is it an acceptable one? No and no, I think. > If this does happen, what other steps should we take to fix it? We should take a look at the proposed features, which ones we deemed appropriate and which not, and find a pattern there; and then codify this into the policy. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
