-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Il 22/03/2017 02:25, Robie Basak ha scritto: > 1) "Regression Potential" > > "Regression Potential" is supposed to describe: > > ...how regressions are most likely to manifest, or may manifest > even if it is unlikely, as a result of this change. It is assumed > that any SRU candidate patch is well-tested before upload and has a > low overall risk of regression, but it's important to make the > effort to think about what could happen in the event of a > regression. > > Note that "Low" or "None", or an explanation of why it is "Low" or > "None", is insufficient and doesn't meet this requirement.
This is true... But you've to admit that there are fixes where it's just not possible to think a regression... Like an obvious null-pointer deference fix. That could just make things not to crash (unless the code path won't lead to somewhere else unwanted, but I'm thinking to the simplest case). > 2) "verification-done" > > When marking "verification-done", please describe what packages > were tested and what versions. This is explicitly requested in the > acceptance message, but I see many people not doing this. > > We have had at least one very severe regression because the > version tested was not the version released. To prevent this > happening again, I will continue to bounce back any > "verification-done" that does not explicitly state what package > versions were tested. Ok, that makes sense... However having a pattern to follow and an SRU bug template also for verifying would help a lot. In the same way we've for opening an SRU bug. So I hope the SRU team could update the wiki with such informations. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlj4j9IACgkQy6VOJFdF1Op9IAD/e8G3z4x4Ytzad64/kRhOdxer omHXterc0osU3RYSWEIA/RbmN2dIKeI3eoP8KLhxke9y+8pHRgWsOlPh4HJ+hkFc =/eZa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
