On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 06:17:48PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Steve Langasek [2013-05-24 13:19 -0700]: > > There are definitely times when I have a sense that the SRUs in the queue > > are not the best use of our time. Every developer has their own idea of > > what's important enough to SRU, and it's difficult as an SRU team member to > > be in the position of arbitrating, and rejecting uploads because /you/ don't > > think they're important. It's also difficult to actually /know/ what's > > important enough for an SRU when it's sitting in front of you in the queue - > > some of this only shows up in aggregate after the fact, when we see that > > -proposed is full of packages that no one has bothered to verify. > > That's actually a very good point. It seems that over time we have > become rather lenient about which kind of fixes we allow as SRUs. My > gut feeling is that the current level is just about right for LTSes, > but especially with the deemphasized role of the non-LTS releases we > should perhaps set the bar much higher again for those?
I will sometimes sponsor SRUs for new contributors as I feel that this (backporting a fix from the development release) is an easier way (than trying to fix a bug yourself) to get started in Ubuntu development. However, I still require these to have a test case, etc... -- Brian Murray
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
