On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:23:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > It is the nature of MRE exceptions that we declare that *such scrutiny is > not required*, because we trust that upstream has a microrelease policy in > place that makes this unnecessary. > > While upstream has legitimate reasons for wishing to flag these > configurations as broken, and they did document it prominently on their > website, the fact that it was included in a microrelease means that their > policy is not consistent with what our MRE policy requires; and therefore we > cannot, under the present circumstances, delegate to upstream in this > matter.
I agree with this principle. This kind of change should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the SRU team and/or TB as appropriate[1] before landing an Ubuntu stable release. So we cannot just delegate this to upstream in this case. However, given that they did document it prominently, I wonder if we could find some middle ground, such as a requirement that somebody[2] inspect upstream documentation for any such notices, document that search, and then if none are found, trust the upstream microrelease to be in line with our policies. Robie [1] The current SRU policy on this matter was decided and delegated by the TB and says: "In other cases where such upstream automatic testing is not available, exceptions must still be approved by at least one member of the Ubuntu Technical Board." [2] Who exactly is an important matter for discussion. -- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
