Handle a regression¶

Report a regression¶

If a package update introduces a regression which already made it through the verification process to -updates, please immediately ensure that a separate bug exists for the issue by filing one as needed, and add the tag regression-update to the bug.

If the regression only applies to the package in -proposed, please follow up to the bug with a detailed explanation, and tag the bug with regression-proposed. To ensure that the package doesn’t accidentally get released, add a comment to an existing bug and change the appropriate tag to verification-<series>-failed.

Handle a regression report¶

This is the playbook to follow when there is a concern about a regression that has taken place in the updates pocket, such that a user receiving the recommended updates within a stable release is regressed somehow. Regressions that have taken place elsewhere (e.g. during a release upgrade, in the security pocket, in the proposed pocket or in Pro-specific repositories) are out of scope.

Uncertainty phase¶

Actions to take¶

All: ensure that a separate bug report exists and that it is tagged regression-update.
All: ensure that the most relevant bug related to the update has a comment stating that a regression is suspected, linking to the regression bug.
Ubuntu developers: if you think the situation warrants moving to the alert phase, contact an SRU team member.

Examples of why we may be stuck in this phase:

Reports may not have all the necessary information
We are not confident in the reliability of the information available to us
The regression can not be reproduced (in by itself, this is not enough reason to doubt it, though)

Alert phase¶

Roles¶

An SRU team member should be nominated to drive decision-making.
It is expected that further technical investigation is carried out by the Ubuntu developer who uploaded the update in question, by a sponsoree under their supervision, or by some other Ubuntu developer delegated by them or their team. However, in their absence, anyone may assume this role. Please coordinate with the nominated SRU team member.

Actions to take¶

Nominate an SRU team member who will coordinate and ensure that they are available and their name is communicated.
Nominate the technical investigator, ensure that they are available and that their name is communicated.
If phasing is still in progress then find an AA to stop phasing, since this is considered easy and risk-free.

Examples of why we may be stuck in this phase:

The source package that caused the regression has not been confidently identified.

Action phase¶

Roles¶

An SRU team member should be nominated to drive decision-making.
It is expected that preparation of the reverting upload and subsequent SRU verification is carried out by the Ubuntu developer who uploaded the regressing update in question, by a sponsoree under their supervision, or by some other Ubuntu developer delegated by them or their team. However, in their absence, anyone may assume this role. Please coordinate with the nominated SRU team member.

Actions to take¶

Verify that there is no reason to think that an exact revert won’t exacerbate the issue. For example, if it’s a postinst failure due to an upgrade path problem, or some other latent bug triggered by the action of updating itself, then an exact revert is probably not appropriate. In this case, these instructions end and you will need to solve the problem according to your best judgement. See also: Explanation → Standard Processes → Regressions → Exceptions that justify pushing ahead.
Otherwise, upload an exact revert of the regressing update for immediate release to updates as soon as appropriate QA is completed, bypassing the usual ageing period. If possible, one SRU team member and one other Ubuntu developer should work together (or one reviewing the other) to minimise the risk of mistakes or unforeseen consequences. However, if nobody is available, the SRU team member may release their own work alone.