Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael, apologies for the overly harsh mail. I think I forgot about my Australian culture, and underestimated how my shock would show through the mail. :) Having spoken to various people on irc in #ubuntu-motu, I've seen some things come out. 1. Our documentation about SRU's needs fixing up. I see a thread already on the mailing list about this. I thought that it was a requirement to test packages yourself, before uploading it. 2. The question of how do we expect our users to test this stuff, when we don't feel it's necessary to test it ourselves? is still a valid one. If some of the more high-profile apps in universe got released with buggy -proposed updates, most people would scream at us, and then turn off -proposed repository - and then we'd have a lot more trouble getting testing. 3. In turn, i'll make sure that *I* read the SRU documentation too, instead of going on the knowledge of it that i had from a few months ago. 4. I never suggested that Michael should be thrown out for this - I said that if a person keeps making these kind of uploads, then perhaps we should look at removing their upload rights, if they've been educated on what they're doing wrong, and then commit more offenses regardless. Again, apologies for the harsh mail. Hobbsee Michael Bienia wrote: On 2007-10-23 15:20:55 +1000, Sarah Hobbs wrote: Michael, what in hell were you thinking? I was contacted by GNUmed upstream about that problem with the gnumed-client package in gutsy. I wanted to help them get the package working again. But I see now that the way I did it was wrong and apologize for doing it. I should have uploaded the package to my PPA instead of -proposed. I won't do any SRU anymore where I'm not absolutely confident that all the testing I can do was done. Please accept my apology. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHHx8U7/o1b30rzoURAtopAKCyQhSQDk5QfsEpsGqVngen9CkjQwCfXVkT PEhpjLuiPhZ6WnrnOpLfd74= =Fiaf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing
On 10/22/07, Sarah Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael, what in hell were you thinking? This is utterly and totally unacceptable. Gutsy is a stable release, and so needs a very high level of QA. This is precisely *why* we have the pain of stable release updates. You throwing untested crap in there highlights the lack of care you have towards our users. I'm honestly not sure why you find this such a problem. Often times testing can be quite complicated and require in-depth knowledge of the software. If I got a patch from upstream who verified that it worked, and the package builds and installs fine, I don't see why it shouldn't be uploaded to -proposed. The whole idea behind having a -proposed repo is for people to test the SRU, just as Michael has asked. Personally, I do as much testing as I can but if I'm unable to reasonable test I ask for help from the community. Is that unreasonable? Part of being a Master of the Universe, (or a Core Dev), is to know what is reasonable to go into the archives, and what is not. An untested package is *never* suitable to go into a stable release (or even proposed updates to a stable release)! Untested in what way? I *always* test that an upload builds OK and installs and I expect the same from other developers, are you wanting more than that? If you are then I'm sort of left wondering why we even have -proposed in the first place. It was created so that we had a place to do the kinds of QA you're taking about. At this point, I'd like to question what we do with people who make uploads like this. If these uploads are repeated, I think we really need to look at removing their upload rights, because they clearly are not suitable for MOTU, based on their lack of care for QA. This is, IMO, uncalled for and a bit over-reactionary. Michael has a long history of doing great work for MOTU. Even if we decide that his actions in this case are not inline with policy, I see, again IMO, no gross and repeated negligence on his part that would make me question his MOTU status. On the other hand, if this is acceptable conduct for people in MOTU now, perhaps we need to document that universe really is completely unsupported, and that people should not expect it to mostly work at all. If this is the case, I suspect a number of us will seriously consider stepping down, or focusing exclusively on main, as MOTU's aims have changed, and we actually care about QA. Honestly, the fact that Michael has even bothered to do an SRU tells me he's thinking of Universe QA. I'd very much rather we deal with the issue, clear up any misunderstandings concerning the SRU policy, and press on. I'd like to point out that Michael is not the only one who's been pushing recent fixes to gutsy without testing. These others should also read this mail carefully, and think a little more before they upload. I think indeed we should look at general MOTU education to make sure all the MOTUs are on the same page and that we have a clear understanding of policy. I'm convinced, from what I know of Michael, that he did not knowingly violate any policy, so let's be constructive here and learn from any mistakes. As a candidate for the MOTU council, and the MOTU, I (and the rest of MOTU, i suspect) expect better of you. Please don't do this again. Hobbsee Steve Kowalik wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: I'm sending this IRC snippet (my question on #ubuntu-motu) was after reading the above mail? [15:49] ScottK geser: Please tell me you didn't upload a fix to gutsy-proposed that you haven't verified works (that's what I get from your mail to the MOTU list)? [15:50] geser ScottK: I didn't check the package myself [15:50] ScottK geser: Did you upload it? [15:50] geser yes [15:50] geser ScottK: that patch comes from upstream [15:51] * ScottK sort of thought testing before uploading would have been a good idea? I'd like a clarification of policy here (I've thought I knew for sure the right answer and been wrong before). I thought SRUs were supposed to be tested before uploading to *-proposed. Is that wrong? Certainly not. The thing to keep in mind is that you are updating a *STABLE* release -- if you throw untested broken crap there, people aren't going to be very happy -- at the very least make sure what you're uploading builds, works, and doesn't have any regressions. Cheers, -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHHYS37/o1b30rzoURAs6HAKCuJFnIXi7BR5ZR3aNDAjP8LE1fVACeMxhp fWhCVqISyxtJAmEjXqQqOyw= =+x16 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
Hi, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:39:21 +0200 Daniel Holbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 15:20 +1000 schrieb Sarah Hobbs: Michael, what in hell were you thinking? This kind of language is not necessary. It does not help coming to a solution. While in general I might agree with you, while the language may be a bit strong, it's a perfectly reasonable question from a member of the community to a candidate for MOTU Council and should be answered. Scott K (This is not a direct answer, I'm talking about the whole thread) The beginning of this thread was raising an interesting point, and it turned into a personal attack against Michael, on a public mailing list. I really don't think he diserves that (nobody does). This is more unacceptable to me than any possible broken package in a repository which exists so that such packages can be tested (people who enables this repo *know* that breakages can happen). Please let's try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there are smarter ways to deal with problems in Ubuntu. Gauvain -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:19, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: Hi, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:39:21 +0200 Daniel Holbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 15:20 +1000 schrieb Sarah Hobbs: Michael, what in hell were you thinking? This kind of language is not necessary. It does not help coming to a solution. While in general I might agree with you, while the language may be a bit strong, it's a perfectly reasonable question from a member of the community to a candidate for MOTU Council and should be answered. Scott K (This is not a direct answer, I'm talking about the whole thread) The beginning of this thread was raising an interesting point, and it turned into a personal attack against Michael, on a public mailing list. I really don't think he diserves that (nobody does). This is more unacceptable to me than any possible broken package in a repository which exists so that such packages can be tested (people who enables this repo *know* that breakages can happen). Actually not always true. We had a bad svn upload to -proposed that got a fairly stunning number of dupes. A lot of people run with it on not understanding. Although harshly worded, I don't think it was an attack. I think it's a serious question that ought to be answered by someone who's put themselves forward as technically versed and mature enough to be setting policy for MOTU. Please let's try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there are smarter ways to deal with problems in Ubuntu. What do you suggest? Once someone is a MOTU (or elected to MOTU Council) there isn't AFAIK any process to deal with removal. Personally, I was stunned by the discovery that any MOTU would upload something to proposed that not only had they not tested, they didn't even know HOW to test. I've done good work with geser in the past, but this case just doesn't strike me as being an example of good judgement at work. I think, particularly as we have no voice in who gets nominated, that us regular MOTUs should be able to closely question the people that the CC/TB have decided are to be the masters of the masters so to speak. This is a one time decision and it needs to be right. Personally, I'm more worried about getting the best MOTU council possible to make good decisions for our future than I am about a few ruffled feathers along the way. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:19, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: Please let's try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there are smarter ways to deal with problems in Ubuntu. What do you suggest? Once someone is a MOTU (or elected to MOTU Council) there isn't AFAIK any process to deal with removal. So one mistake and you're already wanting to drop upload priviledges? Anyway, I was more talking about the I blame you on an ML. Maybe this could have been discussed in irc queries, in a private mail to the MC members Personally, I was stunned by the discovery that any MOTU would upload something to proposed that not only had they not tested, they didn't even know HOW to test. I've done good work with geser in the past, but this case just doesn't strike me as being an example of good judgement at work. Didn't he sent a mail to ask for tests? But again, I'm not judging the facts, but how the whole history turned into some kind of war. I think, particularly as we have no voice in who gets nominated, that us regular MOTUs should be able to closely question the people that the CC/TB have decided are to be the masters of the masters so to speak. AFAICT you already do that and your judgment is taken into account. This is a one time decision and it needs to be right. Personally, I'm more worried about getting the best MOTU council possible to make good decisions for our future than I am about a few ruffled feathers along the way. If it's really something that MOTUs feel, it's right the time to discuss it in a meeting or in an other ML thread to maybe set up new policies. I don't think that the MC has ever rejected discussion of new proposals from the developers community. Gauvain -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 07:16 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman: While in general I might agree with you, while the language may be a bit strong, it's a perfectly reasonable question from a member of the community to a candidate for MOTU Council and should be answered. This is not about making amendments to the wording to make it sound 'ok', it's about having a welcoming and productive atmosphere in the team. I retitled the topic to reflect that. It's harshly worded, but that's ok. is not the attitude that encourages new members and it's not the atmosphere that makes everybody comfortable in the team. Have a nice day, Daniel signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 08:42 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman: What do you suggest? Once someone is a MOTU (or elected to MOTU Council) there isn't AFAIK any process to deal with removal. Removal? I stand firmly behind Michael. He's been doing awesome work and I'm glad he accepted being in the MOTU Council. I'm not saying that I'm happy about this particular upload, but throwing him out of the project does not help with anything. I think, particularly as we have no voice in who gets nominated, that us regular MOTUs should be able to closely question the people that the CC/TB have decided are to be the masters of the masters so to speak. This is a one time decision and it needs to be right. Personally, I'm more worried about getting the best MOTU council possible to make good decisions for our future than I am about a few ruffled feathers along the way. Why don't you raise the point about the MOTU Council election process with the CC and TB, if it bothers you? Ruffled feathers is euphemistic for what has happened here. It's perfectly OK to be questioned about what happened in such an upload or a follow-up mail to the Accepted upload. If such things happen again, it's appropriate to talk to one of the governance bodies we have, but it's not OK to be talked to in such a way. Have a nice day, Daniel signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 15:01 +0200 schrieb Gauvain Pocentek: If it's really something that MOTUs feel, it's right the time to discuss it in a meeting or in an other ML thread to maybe set up new policies. I don't think that the MC has ever rejected discussion of new proposals from the developers community. Thanks Gauvain. This is exactly what I'd expect from the MOTU team. Rational discussion that identifies the general problem and tries to find a way to fix it. Have a nice day, Daniel signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 09:01, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007 08:19, Gauvain Pocentek wrote: Please let's try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there are smarter ways to deal with problems in Ubuntu. What do you suggest? Once someone is a MOTU (or elected to MOTU Council) there isn't AFAIK any process to deal with removal. So one mistake and you're already wanting to drop upload priviledges? I didn't say I wanted that. I was just pointing out that the processes are one way, so I think it's prudent to be careful going through the gate. Anyway, I was more talking about the I blame you on an ML. Maybe this could have been discussed in irc queries, in a private mail to the MC members It's to late for that. The election has already started. If someone's fitness to be on MC is at issue (and personally, I think it is), then in the view of the MOTUs who are currently voting is the ONLY place to have that discussion. Personally, I was stunned by the discovery that any MOTU would upload something to proposed that not only had they not tested, they didn't even know HOW to test. I've done good work with geser in the past, but this case just doesn't strike me as being an example of good judgement at work. Didn't he sent a mail to ask for tests? But again, I'm not judging the facts, but how the whole history turned into some kind of war. The same mail said he didn't even know how to test it yet. Personally, I don't ascribe to the Whack the heck, it's only Universe theory of Universe QA. Developers have a responsibility to do their best to make sure what they upload works. While some of the language has been harsh, I don't think it's some kind of war. My first post on the topic asked for a clarification of policy. I was suprised the what the heck, upload it view got any support at all, but it did and so we are clarifying the policy. I'm glad I brought it up. I think, particularly as we have no voice in who gets nominated, that us regular MOTUs should be able to closely question the people that the CC/TB have decided are to be the masters of the masters so to speak. AFAICT you already do that and your judgment is taken into account. I don't recall being asked who I thought should be nominated to MC. AFAIK, no MOTU outside MC was asked. These candidates are imposed from above. This is a one time decision and it needs to be right. Personally, I'm more worried about getting the best MOTU council possible to make good decisions for our future than I am about a few ruffled feathers along the way. If it's really something that MOTUs feel, it's right the time to discuss it in a meeting or in an other ML thread to maybe set up new policies. I don't think that the MC has ever rejected discussion of new proposals from the developers community. I don't think you are understanding my point. This isn't about proposals being rejected, it's about trusting the judgement of the people who are making the decisions for Universe. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 09:11, Daniel Holbach wrote: Am Dienstag, den 23.10.2007, 07:16 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman: While in general I might agree with you, while the language may be a bit strong, it's a perfectly reasonable question from a member of the community to a candidate for MOTU Council and should be answered. This is not about making amendments to the wording to make it sound 'ok', it's about having a welcoming and productive atmosphere in the team. I retitled the topic to reflect that. It's harshly worded, but that's ok. is not the attitude that encourages new members and it's not the atmosphere that makes everybody comfortable in the team. Personally I don't have the impression that productive is important at all here. Let's welcome everyone no matter what damage they do. I agree the language was over the top, but the question is a reasonable one. I will tell you that I am desperately uncomfortable in the team because the productive part doesn't seem to me to be valued at all. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Atmosphere in the MOTU team (Was: Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing)
On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Daniel Holbach wrote: [...] | Ruffled feathers is euphemistic for what has happened here. I tried to stay out of this one, but I had time to sit back (sleep) and think about the situation. Like Daniel said, Ruffled Feathers is exactly what is happening. You know, I could see this being a much larger issue if we were talking about a package that could cause serious backflow with Ubuntu (like the X upgrade a couple of cycles back), but after researching the Popularity Contest results, GNUmed only has a couple of hundred installs. I am not saying that these installs aren't important, but it isn't a package used by many. Granted, uploading w/o a little testing may in fact be an issue, and I am sure Michael has learned from this one, I can guarantee he more than likely will not do it in the future. Please don't look at this like just because it was GNUmed and it isn't a very popular package just yet that I think the issue is smaller, but I think there has been a little to much blow up here. At the same time I don't want to ruffle any more feathers than have already been ruffled. Obviously it was a small error, and thankfully it was with a smaller package, but I still think that Michael deserves his nomination in the MC and he still has my support! I have known Sarah now for a couple of years and I know her passion for the work that goes on, and obviously the TB does as well otherwise she wouldn't be in the position she is in. With that said, lets fix this from happening in the future, both the testing mistake and the overheated discussions. I have always been the type to pull someone off to the side when I take issue with something, and I think that would have been the best result. One thing we need to remember, these lists are heavily watched, I MEAN HEAVILY, by a bunch of people who have nothing else better to do than post an Ubuntu Developer Fallout FUD story on Digg, Slashdot, OS News and such. Lets put the heated discussion behind us, lets unruffle the feathers, and lets fix the process. No more finger pointing either. -- Richard A. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key: 0x2E2C0124 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing
On 2007-10-23 15:20:55 +1000, Sarah Hobbs wrote: Michael, what in hell were you thinking? I was contacted by GNUmed upstream about that problem with the gnumed-client package in gutsy. I wanted to help them get the package working again. But I see now that the way I did it was wrong and apologize for doing it. I should have uploaded the package to my PPA instead of -proposed. I won't do any SRU anymore where I'm not absolutely confident that all the testing I can do was done. Please accept my apology. Michael signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing
On Monday 22 October 2007 15:39, Michael Bienia wrote: An updated version of gnumed-client is available in gutsy-proposed for testing. To test it, please add the following line to your sources.list: deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ gutsy-proposed universe Please provide feedback to https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/154136. I got contacted by an upstream developer about the problem, I try to get instructions from him, how to test if it works now. Thanks, Michael I'm sending this IRC snippet (my question on #ubuntu-motu) was after reading the above mail? [15:49] ScottK geser: Please tell me you didn't upload a fix to gutsy-proposed that you haven't verified works (that's what I get from your mail to the MOTU list)? [15:50] geser ScottK: I didn't check the package myself [15:50] ScottK geser: Did you upload it? [15:50] geser yes [15:50] geser ScottK: that patch comes from upstream [15:51] * ScottK sort of thought testing before uploading would have been a good idea? I'd like a clarification of policy here (I've thought I knew for sure the right answer and been wrong before). I thought SRUs were supposed to be tested before uploading to *-proposed. Is that wrong? Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: StableReleaseUpdates: gnumed-client (0.2.6.3-1ubuntu0.1) available for testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael, what in hell were you thinking? This is utterly and totally unacceptable. Gutsy is a stable release, and so needs a very high level of QA. This is precisely *why* we have the pain of stable release updates. You throwing untested crap in there highlights the lack of care you have towards our users. Part of being a Master of the Universe, (or a Core Dev), is to know what is reasonable to go into the archives, and what is not. An untested package is *never* suitable to go into a stable release (or even proposed updates to a stable release)! At this point, I'd like to question what we do with people who make uploads like this. If these uploads are repeated, I think we really need to look at removing their upload rights, because they clearly are not suitable for MOTU, based on their lack of care for QA. On the other hand, if this is acceptable conduct for people in MOTU now, perhaps we need to document that universe really is completely unsupported, and that people should not expect it to mostly work at all. If this is the case, I suspect a number of us will seriously consider stepping down, or focusing exclusively on main, as MOTU's aims have changed, and we actually care about QA. I'd like to point out that Michael is not the only one who's been pushing recent fixes to gutsy without testing. These others should also read this mail carefully, and think a little more before they upload. As a candidate for the MOTU council, and the MOTU, I (and the rest of MOTU, i suspect) expect better of you. Please don't do this again. Hobbsee Steve Kowalik wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: I'm sending this IRC snippet (my question on #ubuntu-motu) was after reading the above mail? [15:49] ScottK geser: Please tell me you didn't upload a fix to gutsy-proposed that you haven't verified works (that's what I get from your mail to the MOTU list)? [15:50] geser ScottK: I didn't check the package myself [15:50] ScottK geser: Did you upload it? [15:50] geser yes [15:50] geser ScottK: that patch comes from upstream [15:51] * ScottK sort of thought testing before uploading would have been a good idea? I'd like a clarification of policy here (I've thought I knew for sure the right answer and been wrong before). I thought SRUs were supposed to be tested before uploading to *-proposed. Is that wrong? Certainly not. The thing to keep in mind is that you are updating a *STABLE* release -- if you throw untested broken crap there, people aren't going to be very happy -- at the very least make sure what you're uploading builds, works, and doesn't have any regressions. Cheers, -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHHYS37/o1b30rzoURAs6HAKCuJFnIXi7BR5ZR3aNDAjP8LE1fVACeMxhp fWhCVqISyxtJAmEjXqQqOyw= =+x16 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
