Karmic kernel common debian infrastructure acceptance request

[John Dong]

For the record, I agree with Colin on this. The Tech Board's
guidelines for what the SRU team should be looking for as a part of
the SRU procedure doesn't endorse the kinds of changes in this update
proposal.

With that said I wouldn't feel comfortable either to make a decision
on this update. I do see the merits and the reasoning behind why such
changes were made, but they should be presented to the TB for a
decision.

John


On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:04:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 08:51:42AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> Stefan has informed me that the proposed Karmic upload has not been
>> accepted on the grounds that the debian packaging changes are too large
>> and do not address a specific bug, thereby violating SRU policy.
>
>My statement on this to Stefan was that I felt that my prior
>instructions were explicitly against this kind of change (I've been
>dragged over the coals before as a result of kernel uploads I accepted
>as SRUs, and don't wish to repeat the experience), and that I did not
>feel I had the authority to accept it myself.  However, I said that I
>was happy for the kernel team to raise it with the technical board who
>can overrule me, and that I would take part in the discussion there but
>abstain from a vote.
>
>My suggestion is still that the kernel team should raise this with the
>TB.  That body has varied the SRU rules for special cases in the past,
>but as a single SRU team member (or for that matter a single TB member)
>I don't feel that I can do so to this extent.
>
>Regards,
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20100708/63c84b07/attachment.sig>