Comment 10 for bug 1882375

Usually we try to only consider SRUs for issues that have a high impact on users, as every SRU can potentially introduce regressions. Usually we wait to bunch up more changes in one SRU for lower priority changes too - but seeing that cinnamon doesn't have much movement from the SRU POV, I think we can just do it.

Anyway, I think it's good to go as an SRU. With my SRU-member hat on though, I'd like you to work a bit more on the Regression Potential field. Since as-is, the information there is not enough and the SRU might get rejected during review in the queue.

Could you do an exercise of looking at the change and trying to think: "if there's a bug in this code modification, what could potentially break?". This field is quite crucial to our SRU process, because it gives additional context on which things could be tested 'just to be sure' to check if there are regressions - and if there are regressions, it's easier to identify which change might have caused it. Could you write up something like that?

I could sponsor the package for you right now, but I'd prefer for us to have all the paperwork 'shiny'! Please poke me once this is done. Thanks!