On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:40PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote: > Hi folks, > > now that hardy is out, and intrepid is still closed, it would be a perfect > time to get going with SRUs for hardy. > > Currently, SRU's [1] have the requirement to be fixed in the development > version first. The main use for this is, to not introduce regressions by > forgetting to fix the development version. Of course we cannot do this right > now. > Agreed, I've seen some SRU's worthy of doing without waiting for Intrepid. > So here's my straw-man's plan to get going: Fix stuff in SRU's and drop the > current requirement to have intrepid fixed first, until intrepid actually > opens. Tag each upgrade, which gets accepted by the SRU team > with "needs-fix-intrepid", so that we can later apply the fix for intrepid as > well. > > What do you think? More important, motu-sru: is that OK for you?
A workflow similar to this is okay with me, or any other workflow that allows us to track the state of Intrepid. What I personally propose is to augment the SRU bug description with a "Course of action for Intrepid" section that explains what should be done for Intrepid (i.e. fix already in Debian, a sync/merge will do, new upstream version X.Y.Z should be grabbed, the patch should be front-ported, etc) John
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
