Comment 18 for bug 2029431

> Well, you don't say who you talked to; perhaps whoever you did talk to wants to process this SRU.

I talked to Robie but since posting he sent me "That's not what I said!" so I must have misunderstood him. Your answer made us sort this out in more depth which is helpful - thank you Steve!

First let me summarize the discussion we had for full transparency:
R: Assuming the patch is trivial and obviously low risk, I don't see a massive problem with it in an SRU. I would question though why we're spending effort on it. Is there a reason we should care more about this than for something that will only benefit one person?
C: I think it benefits a class of people. But I'd still think the full number of people benefiting is only two digit
R: It's still weird though. For example, if for a Docker image, why can't they base it on Mantic?
C: it would even be needed just for a static build using slirp (without docker or any such)
R: That's not the reported user story though?
C: I'm mostly +0.75 as I think it is such few work
C: Here is my proposal, if you say it is not a pre-nack by SRU we can have anyone looking for a bitesize thing at it
C: So we'd not spend effort on it now, but when anyone we mentor needs training this is a good candidate
R: It is not a pre-nack from me.
R: Though if it's more than a few weeks the value of landing it at all diminishes significantly
R: That might have already happened.
R: (the value having diminished I mean)

From there on I mostly had a bad feeling as it was so trivial to fix and so low regression for others that I had a hard time finding any good “this is why we are not doing it”. But OTOH I completely agree that it shouldn’t be Canonical effort spent, there are more urgent things.

So I decided to prepare the upload in my private time on a morning before I started work - and so it got into the -unapproved queue.

> For my part, I think the 'importance: wishlist' is accurate and therefore this doesn't meet the threshold of an SRU in terms of cost/benefit.

That threshold I didn’t consider sufficiently, sorry for that.

I thought my talk with Robie would have covered it, but in hindsight it didn’t.

Quote from our clarification run: “I would add that from my perspective (sorry if it wasn't well communicated) what I meant was that I didn't feel that a compelling user story had been established that justified the SRU, but I saw nothing else that would block it, so I didn't intend for our conversation to imply that I was blocking it. But nor was I saying +1 because of the lack of that story.“

So now overall this case is now blocked at not passing this threshold until one makes a more compelling case to convince the SRU team.
We could at least mark it block-proposed to keep it there to be picked up by any other future change exceeding that threshold - WDYT?
I'll mark it that way, feel free to correct/change

> Nothing in this bug indicates it's needed for Ubuntu

It is not needed for Ubuntu itself, only for Ubuntu users that want to create static builds using libslirp.