[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#784373: [Ceph-maintainers] jessie-pu: package ceph/0.80.9-2 (pre approval)



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 22:57:27 +0200, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:

> 
> Hi debian-release
> 
> Gaudenz Steinlin <gaudenz@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > Gaudenz Steinlin <gaudenz@debian.org> writes:
> >> I'd like to update ceph in jessie to the latest upstream bugfix release.
> >> The version of ceph in jessie is a long term support (LTS) release which
> >> will receive updates at least until January 2016. Updates will be bugfix
> >> only. New features go into new release which are developed in parallel.
> >> See at the end of this report for the upstream changelog.
> >>
> >> See http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ for the ceph release timeline
> >> and support statement.
> >>
> >
> > Just as an additional data point, Ubuntu has a "Minor Release Exception"
> > for stable updates for their ceph package [1].
> 
> In the meantime another stable point release of ceph 0.80 (0.80.10) was
> released and on top of that there is a (minor) security issue which
> won't be fixed through a security update but which would be nice to fix
> by a stable update (see bug #798567 / CVE-2015-5245)).
> 
> As another stable update has passed, it would be nice if someone of the
> stable release team could comment on this and eventually decide if they
> are OK with the proposal to follow the ceph stable branch or if they
> don't like it and would prefer an update just fixing the security bug.
> It would be nice to have a decision soon, so that there is enough time
> to prepare and test the update for the next stable point release.
> 
What does the QA process on upstream's bugfix releases, and on the
Debian side for the proposed stable updates, look like?

So far I'm leaning towards rejecting this request, as I don't want to
spend that much time reviewing these changes, and as you see we're
already way behind on stable update requests.

Thanks,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: