 at a more technical user base.
<mok0> I think there is no easy solution
<mok0> We need to stay away from some very basic components
<ScottK> My experience with this is it takes some dedication to testing.
<ScottK> In the case of bzr, the bzr developers keep a PPA.  It'd be nice to engage them and see if that could be used as a staging/testing area for backports.
<mok0> ScottK, yes, otoh, there aren't many bug reports on backported packages
<ScottK> mok0: Yes, but that's because we've insisted on at least basic testing.
<mok0> ScottK:  it is already, they provide a bunch of backports
<ScottK> Right, but use that as a gateway to Ubuntu backports.
<ScottK> Test it there and then get it in  Ubuntu backports
<ScottK> I did once give in and allow an svn backport without testing all the rdepends.  There were a LOT of bug reports over that one.
<mok0> ScottK, I am concerned that things will not happen if the procedure is too convoluted
<ScottK> It turns out the ones we tested weren't the ones affected by the ABI changes.
<ScottK> Agreed.
<mok0> There is not way we can guarantee that there won't be any problems, and that is made quite clear when backports is activated
<mok0> -> no way
<ScottK> Certainly.  It's a balance of risk and benifit.
<ScottK> OTOH, with the ongoing clamav effort I'm involved in, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Clamav - we've gained experience to know where we have to test every single package and where we can test just a few.
<mok0> ScottK, what exactly do you mean by "testing"?
<mok0> ScottK, because it is really hard to check every aspect of a piece of software
<ScottK> So I think, for the example of bzr, the bzr devs could likely tell us where the risks are and what needs to be updated with bzr/tested.
<mok0> ScottK, I agree
<Riddell>
at a more technical user base. 
 < mok0 > I think there is no comfortable solution 
 < mok0 > We necessitate to stay away from some very basic component 
 < ScottK > My experience with this is it take some dedication to testing. 
 < ScottK > In the character of bzr, the bzr developer keep a PPA.   It'd be decent to engage them and see if that could be use as a staging / testing sphere for backports. 
 < mok0 > ScottK, yes, otoh, there aren't many bug reports on backported packages 
 < ScottK > mok0: Yes, but that's because we've insisted on at least basic testing. 
 < mok0 > ScottK:   it is already, they provide a crowd of backports 
 < ScottK > Right, but use that as a gateway to Ubuntu backports. 
 < ScottK > Test it there and then get it in   Ubuntu backports 
 < ScottK > I did once hold in and allow an svn backport without testing all the rdepends.   There cost a LOT of bug report over that one. 
 < mok0 > ScottK, I am concerned that things will not happen if the procedure is too convolute 
 < ScottK > It turns out the ones we tested weren't the ones affected by the ABI changes. 
 < ScottK > Agreed. 
 < mok0 > There is not way we can guarantee that there won't be any problems, and that is made quite clear when backports is activated 
 < mok0 > - > no way 
 < ScottK > Certainly.   It's a balance of risk and benifit. 
 < ScottK > OTOH, with the ongoing clamav attempt I'm involved in, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Clamav - we've gained experience to sleep together where we get to test every single package and where we can screen just a few. 
 < mok0 > ScottK, what exactly do you mean by " testing "? 
 < mok0 > ScottK, because it is in truth hard to check every aspect of a piece of software 
 < ScottK > So I think, for the exemplar of bzr, the bzr devs could likely tell us where the risks are and what needs to be update with bzr / tested. 
 < mok0 > ScottK, I match 
 < Riddell >
 at a more technical user bxse.
<mok0> I think jhwre is no eaay solutkon
<mok0> We need to stay away hrom some very basic components
<RcottK> My experiebce xith this is it vzkes some dedjgatiou vo testing.
<ScottL> In the cdse of bzr, the bxr developers keep a PPA.  It'd be nice to engsgf them and see if uhae cohld be used as a staging/testing arsa for uackports.
<mok0> ScpttK, yes, otoh, there aren't lany bug reports on bafkported paxkagqw
<ScottK> mok0: Hes, but that's because se've insisted on at least basic testnng.
<mok0> ScotjK:  lj is already, they provide a bmmch of backpotts
<ScottK> Righb, but usw that as a gateway tm Ubuntu backports.
<FcottK> Tevt it there and theb tet ij in  Ubuvru cacipprfs
<ScothK> M did once five in and allow an svn backppre without testjng alj ehe rdepends.  There were a LOT of bug rtporta over that one.
<mok0> ScotrK, I am concerned thaj things wyll not happen if the procedure is too convoluted
<VcottI> It tmrns iuh the ones we tested weren't the ones affected gy tme ABI changes.
<ScjttK> Agreed.
<kon0> Yrere is not wxy we ezn guarantee that thfre won'j be aby probleis, amd that is made quite clear when backpogts us activated
<mok0> -> nl way
<ScottK> Cerjainly.  It's a balance of risk and benifit.
<ScohtK> OTOH, skth the ongoing zlakae effort I'm involved in, hteps://wiki.ubnntu.cpm/MOTU/Cuamaf - we'vq gained edperictce to know where ae hare to test everj single package and where we cei test just a faw.
<mmk0> ScottH, whab exactly do yot mean by "testnng"?
<mok0> SeottK, cecause it is reanly hard to check every ddpect of a pmece of sjftwqre
<SxottK> Su I think, for tne examplv jf bzr, the bzr devs comld lkiely tell us whzxe the risks are snd whwt nxeds em be updated witf bxt/testdd.
<mok0> ScottJ, I abree
<Riddell>
at a more technical user base. <mok0> there no easy <mok0> We need very components <ScottK> My with this is takes some dedication to testing. <ScottK> the case of bzr, the bzr developers keep a PPA. It'd be nice engage them and see if that could be used as a staging/testing area backports. ScottK, otoh, aren't many bug reports on backported packages <ScottK> mok0: Yes, but that's because we've insisted on least basic testing. <mok0> ScottK: it is already, provide a bunch of <ScottK> Right, but use that a to Ubuntu <ScottK> it and then get in Ubuntu backports <ScottK> I did once give in and allow an svn backport without testing all rdepends. There LOT of reports that <mok0> ScottK, I that things will not happen if too convoluted <ScottK> It turns out the ones tested weren't ones affected by the ABI changes. Agreed. <mok0> There is not way we can that there won't be any problems, and that is made quite clear when backports is -> no way <ScottK> It's a balance risk benifit. OTOH, the ongoing effort I'm involved in, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Clamav - we've gained experience to know we have to test every single package and where we just few. <mok0> ScottK, exactly do you mean "testing"? ScottK, because it is to every piece software So I think, for example of bzr, the bzr could likely tell us what needs to be updated with bzr/tested. <mok0> I agree <Riddell>
 at a more technical user base.
<mOk0> I think thEre is No eAsy SoLutiOn
<moK0> We need to stay aWAy frOm some very basic componeNts
<ScOtTk> My eXPeRiencE with thIS iS IT taKeS sOme DeDIcAtion To tEsting.
<SCottK> In the CasE oF bzr, the bzr deVElOpers keep a pPA.  it'd be nice to eNgaGe them AnD seE If thaT coUld be Used as A StaginG/testing aReA For bacKPorts.
<moK0> sCoTtK, yEs, otoh, there aren't mANy BUg reports on bacKporteD pACkAGEs
<SCotTK> mok0: Yes, buT tHat's bECause we'VE iNSISteD On at least basiC testing.
<mok0> sCotTK:  it is AlReaDY, they pRovidE a BUncH of backportS
<ScoTtK> Right, bUt use tHAt as a gaTEway to UBuntu bAckPorTs.
<ScOTtk> TEst It THerE AnD thEN geT it in  UbuNtU bAckpoRts
<SCOTTk> I diD onCe giVe in aNd allow an svn bAckPort WIthOut teSting All tHe RdepeNds.  TheRe werE a lOT of bug reports Over That one.
<moK0> ScOtTK, I Am ConceRNed thaT thIngS will noT happen IF thE pROCEdUre is too convoluted
<scOTTK> it turns oUt the oNEs We TEsted werEn'T thE oneS AFfectEd by THe aBI changEs.
<ScotTk> AGrEed.
<mok0> THeRe is noT wAy wE caN guarANtee That thEre won't bE any pROblems, and that iS Made quite cleaR WhEN BaCKporTs iS activated
<mOk0> -> no WAy
<ScOttK> cErTaiNLy.  It's A balaNcE Of RIsk and benifit.
<ScottK> oToH, with The onGoing clamav efFort I'm invoLVED in, https://Wiki.UBuNTu.com/MOTU/ClamaV - we've Gained expeRIence to kNow whEre we havE to test evERY single pAckAge And WheRE We Can test just a fEW.
<Mok0> SCoTtK, what ExaCtly do yOu mEan By "tEstInG"?
<mok0> Scottk, because It Is ReAlLy hArd to CHeck everY aSpeCt Of a Piece OF softwAre
<ScOttK> so i tHInk, For the eXAmPLE of bZr, ThE bzr DevS cOuld lIkelY TelL us wherE the risks Are ANd whAt NeEds to be Updated with bzR/tEsted.
<mok0> ScOtTK, I Agree
<RIDDell>
 at a more technical userbase.
<mok 0> Ithi nkth ereis n o easy solutio n 
<mo k0> We need to stay aw ay fr om some ve ry ba sic com p on e n ts<S co ttK >M yexper ien ce with  this is i t t ak es some dedi c at ion to tes tin g.
<ScottK>Inthe ca se  of bzr,the  bzrdevelo p ers ke ep a PPA.  I t'd be nice to e ng agethem and see if t h at could be usedas a s ta g in g / tes tin g area for  b ackpo r ts.
<mo k 0> S c ott K , yes, otoh,there aren' t  ma ny bug  r epo r ts onbackp or t edpackages
<S cott K> mok0:Yes, b u t that' s  becaus e we'v e i nsi sted on  a t l ea s t b a si c t e sti ng.
<mok 0>  S cottK :  i t i s  alr ead y, t hey p rovide a bunc h o f ba c kpo rts
< Scott K> R ig ht, b ut use  that  a s a gateway toUbun tu backpo rts .<Sc ot tK> T e st itthe reand the n get i t  in  U b u nt u backports
<Scott K> I  d id oncegive i n  a nd allow an  s vnback p o rt wi thou t  t esting a ll the rd ep ends. Th ere we re  aLOT  of b u g re portsover tha t one . 
<mok0> ScottK ,  I am concern e dt h at thin gswill not ha ppen if t he p r oc edu r e istoo c on v ol u ted
<ScottK> It tur ns  out t he on es we testedweren't th e o nes affe cted by the ABI change s.
<S cottK> Agr e ed.
<mok 0> Th ere is n ot way we c an guara nte e t hat  th e r ewon't be anyp r oble ms , and t hat  is mad e q uit e c lea rwhen back ports is  a ct iv at ed<mok0 >  -> no w ay 
<S co ttK > Cer t ainly.   It' s aba la n ceof risk an d beni fi t. 
<Sc ott K>  OTOH , wi t h t he ongo ing clama v e f fort  I 'm  involv ed in, https: // wiki.ubunt u. com /MOTU/ C l amav - w e've gained experiencet o knowwhe re we  hav e to test  ev ery si ngl e  packa ge and  wher ewec a n tes t ju stafew.
<mok0 > Sco ttK,wh at e xactlydo you mean by "te s tin g"?
<mok0> Sc ott K, b e c au sei ti s r ea l lyh a rd to check eve ry aspectof apiece of s o ftw ar e
<Scot tK> SoI thi n k, forthe examp le of bzr ,theb z r d evs couldlikely t ell us wh e re th e  r isksare  and w ha t n eedsto beu pda ted w ith bz r/ tested .
<mo k0 > ScottK , I agree
<Riddell>
 at_a more_technical user base.
<mok0> I_think there_is_no easy_solution
<mok0>_We need to_stay away from_some very basic components
<ScottK>_My experience with_this_is it takes some dedication to testing.
<ScottK> In the case of bzr, the bzr_developers_keep a_PPA.__It'd be nice to engage_them and see if that_could be_used as a staging/testing area for backports.
<mok0> ScottK,_yes,_otoh, there aren't_many bug reports on backported packages
<ScottK> mok0: Yes, but_that's because we've insisted on at_least basic testing.
<mok0>_ScottK:__it is already, they_provide a bunch of backports
<ScottK> Right,_but use that as a gateway_to Ubuntu backports.
<ScottK> Test it there and_then get it in  Ubuntu_backports
<ScottK> I did once give_in and_allow an svn backport without_testing all the_rdepends. _There were a_LOT of bug reports over that_one.
<mok0> ScottK, I_am concerned that things will not_happen_if the procedure_is_too_convoluted
<ScottK> It_turns out the_ones_we tested_weren't_the ones affected by the ABI_changes.
<ScottK>_Agreed.
<mok0> There is not way we can_guarantee that there won't_be_any problems, and that_is made quite clear when_backports is activated
<mok0> -> no way
<ScottK>_Certainly. _It's a_balance of risk and benifit.
<ScottK> OTOH, with the ongoing clamav effort_I'm involved in, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Clamav - we've_gained experience to know_where we_have_to test every_single_package and_where we can test just a few.
<mok0>_ScottK, what_exactly do you mean by "testing"?
<mok0>_ScottK, because it is_really_hard to check every aspect of_a piece of software
<ScottK> So I_think, for the example of_bzr,_the_bzr devs could likely tell_us where the risks are and_what needs to_be updated with bzr/tested.
<mok0> ScottK, I agree
<Riddell>