On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:53:50 -0000, "Cody A.W. Somerville" 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm fine with this SRU going through as the patch is clearly benign and
> I can certainly imagine how annoying it is. However, I think we should
> re-evaluate point 4 as it leaves the door wide open for all sorts of
> changes. These sort of SRU adds load to both the SRU and QA team which
> could probably be better invested on testing and reviewing changes to
> fix regressions and more serious bugs.
> 
> In fact, with this specific SRU, we're not even fixing a bug but
> updating it to add support for a newer target distribution - something
> that will need to happen again in the future. I question if SRUs should
> be used to performed regularly required updates.

I don't intend for this to happen again. I forgot that the list was
hardcoded, and so didn't add it when the new name was announced, I aim
to do that this time.

I think the discussion is worthwhile to have though, just maybe not on
this bug report :-)

Thanks,

James

-- 
mark-uploaded fails with "Unknown target distribution: lucid"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/476530
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to