On 21 April 2017 at 00:46, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Hi Robie, > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 01:36:26PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: >> 1) What package name and version string was tested (saying "the one from >> xenial-proposed" isn't enough for me, as this is where we see things >> going wrong as that version can change). > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:39:07PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:28:39PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: >> > requirement ... and indeed it's not in the wiki. So we have at least one >> > example where something checked the wiki documentation as a reference, >> > wiki also is easy enough to edit so there is no real reason to not do it. > >> Thanks. I don't think I'm actually suggesting any change in policy here >> - it seems to me that what I'm asking for isn't consistently written >> everywhere even though it is actually current policy (because it has >> always* been asked for in at least one place). So I'll JFDI and edit >> everything for clarity, including the wiki, unless someone objects. > > FTR I do consider your point 1) to be a policy change, and not one I'm > sanguine about. We struggle to get SRUs through the verification process > today, and I don't think raising further barriers significantly improves the > outcomes for our users but /would/ slow things down by requiring further > round trips. >
I think 1) was due failure to validate a complex SRU of multiple packages.... and people were testing package version numbers from ppa's rather than -proposed, and things got delayed by a significant amount of time. > You are of course right that we need to have confidence the package which > was tested is the actual package which will be released. But I don't think > that means we should have a hard rule that an SRU verification comment needs > to list the version number, because while the version in -proposed can > change over time, in most cases it's *not* ambiguous which version was in > -proposed when the user tested. > > What do you think about a wording such as this?: > > - The SRU verification must clearly indicate which package was tested. > The most reliable way to ensure this is to list the version number of > the tested package. This should be added to the SRU stock response of "Hello Reporter, or anybody else affected..." message, e.g. end it with: " ! NB PLEASE state the package version tested in full using dpkg-query -W $package ! " -- Regards, Dimitri. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel