Thanks Matthew.

> The version is 21.2.0-1ubuntu1 when it should have been 21.2.0-1ubuntu0.1
Good point. I can see it is now documented at [1]. It was an old habit of mine 
from the times were
the main requirement was not to break the upgrade path. I will keep that in 
mind for the future and
ensure this is checked in the sru-lint tool.

> The bug tag is "(Fixes LP: #2121607)" but it really should have been "(LP: 
> #2121607)"
Is it required or is it a personal preference? The documentation mentions "Use 
exactly LP: #NNNNNNN
or (LP: #NNNNNNN)" (please get familiar with the "Bug references" section of 
[2]). My understanding
is that "Fixes LP: #2121607" contains the required part: LP: #NNNNNNN.

> maybe lp2121607-Rework-linecache-handling-828.patch would have been a better 
> name.
Is it documented anywhere? If not - I believe both the sponsor and the SRU 
author have the right to
have a different taste for the patch names, as long as they make sense. If it 
is: I would be happy
to follow the documentation next time.

> The patch has no dep3 tags, at minimum it should really have Bug-Ubuntu and 
> Origin fields.
I agree with Origin - it was my bad as it should be present. On the other hand 
please note that
Subject is present and it is perfectly valid DEP-3 tag (please see [3]) 
rendering your statement "no
dep3 tags" inaccurate.  Also, please note that Bug-<Vendor> is an optional tag.

I tend to expect people to at least meet the required standards of the SRUs, 
but I’m not comfortable
asking them to change things solely to satisfy my personal taste. I can 
advocate for my preferred
approach, but that alone isn't grounds for rejecting their work.

[1] 
https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/how-ubuntu-is-made/concepts/version-strings/#version-adding-a-change-in-ubuntu-as-a-stable-release-update
[2] 
https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/contributors/patching/commit-changes/
[3] 
https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/how-ubuntu-is-made/concepts/deb-3-patch-file-headers/

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2121607

Title:
  [SRU] Nova-api showing latency after upgrading to Caracal

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2121607/+subscriptions


-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to