SRU

Differences between revisions 32 and 33
Revision 32 as of 2007-02-22 06:30:40
Size: 6752
Editor: crimsun
Comment:
Revision 33 as of 2007-03-07 17:29:05
Size: 4936
Editor: dholbach
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 27: Line 27:
 1. Propose

  All proposals for stable release updates must be '''approved''' by members of the [https://launchpad.net/people/motu-sru MOTU Stable Release Updates team]. A convenient way to do this is to attach all of the information to the bug report, then subscribe the `motu-sru` team. SRU proposals must be accompanied by the following information for each bug to be addressed:

   * A '''bug number''' referring to a complete bug report describing the problem and its effect
   * A '''statement explaining the impact''' of the bug on users and justification for backporting the fix to the stable release
   * An explanation of '''how the bug has been addressed''' in the development branch, including the relevant version numbers of packages modified in order to implement the fix
   * A '''patch''' applicable to the stable version of the package. If preparing a patch is likely to be time-consuming, it may be preferable to discuss the first three items before preparing a patch.

  A copy of this proposal and a hyperlink to any prior discussion thread should be added to the bug report as a comment, usually by CCing ''bugnumber''`@bugs.launchpad.net`.
  
  A proposal is accepted, once three people from the MOTU-SRU team give their assent.
Line 42: Line 30:
  Once an update has been discussed and approved in principle, an upload can be prepared. The following criteria apply to any packages modified as part of the update:   Once an update has been agreed on and falls under the criteria above, an upload can be prepared. The following criteria apply to any packages modified as part of the update:
Line 45: Line 33:
   * The bug report must include an '''approved SRU proposal'''
Line 49: Line 36:
  Once the upload is ready, attach a complete source package diff (`debdiff`) to the bug report for review.   Once the upload is ready, attach a complete source package diff (`debdiff`) to the bug report for review.     The sponsor of the upload is responsible for testing the update.
Line 53: Line 43:
   * The member of motu-sru, that will give the 3rd ack for a SRU-request, will also take care for uploading the package and will subscribe `ubuntu-sru`.

  A
rchive administrators should then verify that the version number of the upload is sane and accept the package into -proposed. They set the bug status to `Fix committed`.
  After the upload, archive administrators should then verify that the version number of the upload is sane and accept the package into -proposed. They set the bug status to `Fix committed`.
Line 64: Line 52:
  * In case that problems are discovered during testing, motu-sru may reject the current proposal. They will add a comment with the reason to the bug report and set the status back to `in progress`.
* If the testing period is over and there 5 persons have stated "works for me", motu-sru will set the tag `verification-motu-done`.
  * If the testing period is over and there 2 persons have stated "works for me", motu-sru will set the tag `verification-motu-done`.
Line 69: Line 56:
  After at least '''5 persons''' have tested the package and attached a "works for me" comment to the bug and after a minimum aging period of '''7 days''', motu-sru will prepare a second upload to ''release''`-updates`:   After at least '''2 persons''' have tested the package and attached a "works for me" comment to the bug and after a minimum aging period of '''7 days''', motu-sru will prepare a second upload to ''release''`-updates`:
Line 82: Line 69:
  * In the event of a regression, '''immediately''' notify the [mailto:ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Ubuntu Universe maintainers] via email, and ask for help on `#ubuntu-motu` in making contact with a member of the MOTU SRU team.   * In the event of a regression, '''immediately''' notify the [mailto:ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Ubuntu Universe maintainers] via email, and ask for help on `#ubuntu-motu`.
Line 86: Line 73:
As reference you can lookup [https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cinepaint/+bug/65457] to have an idea on how the procedure works. ''Old procedure'': As reference you can lookup [https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cinepaint/+bug/65457] to have an idea on how the procedure works.
Line 88: Line 75:
== Comments ==

21-01-2007, pascal.devuyst@gmail.com: cpio is a bad example since it belongs to main, we need a universe example.
 * Replaced cpio example with cinepaint. - ["DanielTChen"]

Universe SRU Policy

Once an Ubuntu release has been completed and published, updates for it are only released under certain circumstances, and must follow a special procedure.

Why

In contrast to pre-release versions, official releases of Ubuntu are subject to much wider use, and by a different demographic of user. During development, changes to the distribution primarily affect developers, early adopters and other advanced users, all of whom have elected to use pre-release software at their own risk.

Users of the official release, in contrast, expect a high degree of stability. They use their Ubuntu system for their day-to-day work, and problems they experience with it can be extremely disruptive. Many of them are less experienced with Ubuntu and with Linux, and expect a reliable system which does not require their intervention.

Stable release updates are automatically recommended to a very large number of users, and so it is critically important to treat them with great caution. Therefore, when updates are proposed, they must be accompanied by a strong rationale and present a low risk of regressions.

For packages in the Universe and Multiverse components, whilst they are popular, they are not installed by default and therefore have a lower risk of affecting many users if a regression occurs.

When

Stable release updates will, in general, only be issued in order to fix high-impact bugs. Examples of such bugs include:

  • Bugs which may, under realistic circumstances, directly cause a security vulnerability

  • Bugs which represent severe regressions from the previous release of Ubuntu

  • Bugs which may, under realistic circumstances, directly cause a loss of user data

How

This process is to be followed for all updates except those to fix security updates, which are only released by the Ubuntu security team. Security procedures are documented at SecurityUpdateProcedures.

  1. Prepare
    • Once an update has been agreed on and falls under the criteria above, an upload can be prepared. The following criteria apply to any packages modified as part of the update:
      • The changelog entry and resulting .changes file must include a reference to the corresponding bug report(s)

      • The version number(s) must be carefully checked in order to avoid clashing with any other version of the package, past, present or future. A general "best practice" is to use the suffix ~proposed1 or ~prop1.

      • The upload target must be release-proposed

      Once the upload is ready, attach a complete source package diff (debdiff) to the bug report for review. The sponsor of the upload is responsible for testing the update.

  2. Upload
    • After the upload, archive administrators should then verify that the version number of the upload is sane and accept the package into -proposed. They set the bug status to Fix committed.

  3. Test
    • Once the update has been published in -proposed, it can be tested by a wider audience.

    • Notify the MOTU team via the ubuntu-motu mailing list [mailto:ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>] of the availability of this package for testing

      • Prepend "StableReleaseUpdates" to the Subject line of your e-mail.

      • Add a verification-motu-needed tag to the bug report.

    • Test the package yourself
    • If the testing period is over and there 2 persons have stated "works for me", motu-sru will set the tag verification-motu-done.

  4. Release
    • After at least 2 persons have tested the package and attached a "works for me" comment to the bug and after a minimum aging period of 7 days, motu-sru will prepare a second upload to release-updates:

    • Include a changelog entry with:
      • A new version number (the same cautions apply regarding the choice of version number)
      • Confirmation of the above testing, including the name of the tester in each case

    • Make no other changes relative to the version in -proposed

      The archive administrators must verify that uploads to -updates meet these criteria. In the future, the update from -proposed will be copied verbatim instead, once the necessary infrastructure is available.

  5. Following up
    • Add yourself as a bug contact for the package in Launchpad, if you are not one already

    • For 7 days after the update is released, monitor Launchpad for bug reports relating to the update

    • In the event of a regression, immediately notify the [mailto:ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Ubuntu Universe maintainers] via email, and ask for help on #ubuntu-motu.

Examples

Old procedure: As reference you can lookup [https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cinepaint/+bug/65457] to have an idea on how the procedure works.


["CategoryMOTU"]

MOTU/SRU (last edited 2008-08-06 16:22:55 by localhost)