Re: Micro Release Exception needed for nova/glance/keystone
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:50:07AM +, Dave Walker wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 04:15:43PM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: I was just reviewing the SRU's that Chuck Short uploaded for keystone, nova, and glance to oneiric-proposed, and it strikes me that really OpenStack core components should go through the MicroReleaseException process. Upstream has active QA, and as of diablo supports a stable release branch with policies around acceptance. Just sending this to ubuntu-devel as a PSA that if your SRU has more than 2 or 3 bugs to fix at one time, its probably not going to be able to pass through our manual patch review process. However, take a look at the criteria here and consider applying for a micro release exception: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions Hi Clint, I think this really needs some further clarification. I followed this process earlier this year, when performing an SRU for bind9 which involved a new upstream version.. This was jumping from upstream versions 9.7.0 - 9.7.3 in Lucid. I raised the subject with the TB, and mdz responded that: MicroReleaseExceptions is a list of standing exceptions. It's not necessary to go through the tech board to handle one-off requests like this one. The SRU team can decide what to do here without TB involvement. [0] Is this still the case? I see the distinction as: A. Should we update package foo to version x.y.z in order to fix bugs N and M? should be cleared with the SRU team. The SRU team can set policy and make exceptions to it as appropriate to act in the best interests of Ubuntu users. B. Should we, *in general*, track upstream bugfix releases of package foo and trust that they're appropriate for use by all Ubuntu users? should be cleared with the TB. The TB has set criteria to help evaluate whether this is appropriate. It sounds like Clint is suggesting that B. would be more appropriate than A. for OpenStack. I haven't personally checked if the OpenStack components meet the documented criteria. FWIW, I would support the TB in delegating more of this authority to the SRU team if that would streamline things. So far, there have only been a handful of exceptions, and it hasn't been an issue. -- - mdz -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Micro Release Exception needed for nova/glance/keystone
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 04:15:43PM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: I was just reviewing the SRU's that Chuck Short uploaded for keystone, nova, and glance to oneiric-proposed, and it strikes me that really OpenStack core components should go through the MicroReleaseException process. Upstream has active QA, and as of diablo supports a stable release branch with policies around acceptance. Just sending this to ubuntu-devel as a PSA that if your SRU has more than 2 or 3 bugs to fix at one time, its probably not going to be able to pass through our manual patch review process. However, take a look at the criteria here and consider applying for a micro release exception: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions Hi Clint, I think this really needs some further clarification. I followed this process earlier this year, when performing an SRU for bind9 which involved a new upstream version.. This was jumping from upstream versions 9.7.0 - 9.7.3 in Lucid. I raised the subject with the TB, and mdz responded that: MicroReleaseExceptions is a list of standing exceptions. It's not necessary to go through the tech board to handle one-off requests like this one. The SRU team can decide what to do here without TB involvement. [0] Is this still the case? [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/bind9/+bug/651875/comments/12 Kind Regards, Dave Walker signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Micro Release Exception needed for nova/glance/keystone
Excerpts from Dave Walker's message of Mon Nov 28 16:50:07 -0800 2011: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 04:15:43PM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: I was just reviewing the SRU's that Chuck Short uploaded for keystone, nova, and glance to oneiric-proposed, and it strikes me that really OpenStack core components should go through the MicroReleaseException process. Upstream has active QA, and as of diablo supports a stable release branch with policies around acceptance. Just sending this to ubuntu-devel as a PSA that if your SRU has more than 2 or 3 bugs to fix at one time, its probably not going to be able to pass through our manual patch review process. However, take a look at the criteria here and consider applying for a micro release exception: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions Hi Clint, I think this really needs some further clarification. I followed this process earlier this year, when performing an SRU for bind9 which involved a new upstream version.. This was jumping from upstream versions 9.7.0 - 9.7.3 in Lucid. I raised the subject with the TB, and mdz responded that: MicroReleaseExceptions is a list of standing exceptions. It's not necessary to go through the tech board to handle one-off requests like this one. The SRU team can decide what to do here without TB involvement. [0] Indeed, in single cases the SRU team can in fact approve whatever is necessary to correct high impact bugs in stable releases. I'm suggesting that if OpenStack will continue to fix bugs at this rate on stable releases of OpenStack, it would be best if it were covered by a standing exception so that these massive bug fix releases can be waived through and managed by those who know OpenStack best. Otherwise the SRU team will have to be faced with a decision each time.. whether to reject it on its merits, or waive the verification steps, or require that all of the bugs fixed in the upload are verified with the usual procedures. We can absolutely waive the usual verification and bug requirements this time, if you don't feel that there will be issues like this going forward with OpenStack. Given the work around setting up policy and structure for the stable updates branch of OpenStack, it would seem that there will be quite a bit of ongoing maintenance of stable releases of OpenStack. I think it would be in both Ubuntu and OpenStack's best interest if those were able to move through the SRU process rapidly. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Micro Release Exception needed for nova/glance/keystone
I was just reviewing the SRU's that Chuck Short uploaded for keystone, nova, and glance to oneiric-proposed, and it strikes me that really OpenStack core components should go through the MicroReleaseException process. Upstream has active QA, and as of diablo supports a stable release branch with policies around acceptance. Just sending this to ubuntu-devel as a PSA that if your SRU has more than 2 or 3 bugs to fix at one time, its probably not going to be able to pass through our manual patch review process. However, take a look at the criteria here and consider applying for a micro release exception: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
