Hi Balint, On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:05:11PM +0800, Balint Reczey wrote: > Robie Basak pointed out that in the stable release exception [1] for > gce-compute-image-packages the wording does not explicitly lift the > requirement for the the package to reach the minimal age (7 days) > before it can migrate from -proposed to the release. > > In practice requiring 7 days to be spent in -proposed for this source > package is not particularly useful since the binary packages are > maintained only for Google's infrastructure and both Google and us > test them as part of the verification process. No one else is expected > to test those packages in the remaining time of default required > minimal age.
Thank you for raising this here. It's certainly undesirable for there to be ambiguity about whether the aging period applies to this package or not. I think your argument could equally be made for any package in the archive with an interested upstream that performs SRU verification for us. I don't see any reason here to make an exception just for this package. Without such a reason, if it makes sense to drop the requirement for this package, then it follows that it should make equal sense to change SRU policy to drop the requirement for any package where an involved upstream with a good track performs SRU verification for us. I've always seen the aging period as an opportunity for interested _users_ to nack a proposed SRU that breaks them - for example if their use case isn't covered by the SRU verification performed by others. I believe that I have seen this happen in practice. Perhaps not with this package in particular, but I think the nature of regressions is that it isn't practical to gather a sufficient sample size looking at a single package to make this kind of policy decision. One regression is too many. In this case, I think user-based regression alert opportunity still applies. Presumably the reason for this package to exist in the Ubuntu archive is that there are users. Removing the aging requirement removes the opportunity for those users to tell us about problems. My conclusions: 1. In my opinion, there isn't a sufficient justification here (or at least presented here) to drop the aging requirement for this package. 2. If we do decide to make an exception for this package, we should consider whether the underlying reason should apply to all packages with similar workflows by policy, and therefore whether it should be a change to general policy instead. 3. Removing ambiguity in policy is useful. We should update the SRU exception documention for this package to make it clear that the aging requirement still stands. I welcome opposing opinions from the SRU team. Robie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
