Comment 31 for bug 1681839
Revision history for this message
| Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer) wrote | #31 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
Hi Mathew,
thanks for picking up the torch again on this issue that affected quite some people, but but so far never reached the state to be really fixable.
## Verification ##
Most importantly was to get some repro for test and verification.
This was formerly a big issue, it affected plenty of people on the bug but we never reached a state to reliably reproduce it to verify its effects. I have read your update to the Description - thanks for adding all that.
I was giving the new repro steps outlined there a try as you have seen above I can confirm that they are good \o/
## Patches ##
You included 4 patches which exactly matched what I identified a while ago - thanks.
As I said back then in comment #6 they seemed rather backportable, thanks for doing that in the debdiff applied.
They miss proper dep3 tagging but I can fix this up ahead sponsoring for you.
## Regression Risk ##
I don't fully agree to the regression potential. You didn't say anything wrong, just from lessons-learned int he past blockjobs have turned out to be a source of unexpected and sometime strange regressions.
I agree that it should (tm) be safe, but we should be extra cautios as well.
Once it is in proposed we'd want more time there and probably should do some extra tests.
## Testing in proposed ##
1) I can provide some regression testing on my own, with a focus but not exclusive on migration. Mine isn't that heavy on snapshots where this certainly has the biggest chance of an impact.
2) @Matthew - if you could provide more tests (mabye SEG has some on top) for regressions in general that would be great.
3) @Matthew - we might consider going to e.g. the Openstack Team to run a test set on it as well just to be on the safe side. Will you ping and ask them or should I do so?
## PPA ##
The old PPA I had is long dead.
I opened a new one (like yours but with my minimal patch header updates and builds on all architectures) at:
=> https:/
## Sponsoring ##
This LGTM as-is from the patches, but as mentioned we should do tests 1+2+3
The SRU team can already take a look at accepting it, we can either test from the PPA or against xenial-proposed once accepted. The only one that strictly has to be on -proposed is the actual verification of the case then.