Comment 12 for bug 1890248

Thank you Mariusz for the explanation. There is a few 'red/yellow flags' here right now, but we can continue the discussion. I mean, some bits we could work-around - like, the lack of a good test automation story - this for instance could be still accepted taking into consideration your (Intel's) testing. Since the only thing we want to accomplish with this requirement is reducing the risk of regressions for existing users, and any thorough testing might be already an acceptable criteria here.

But then I think the remaining requirements for getting this in would be: trying to formulate a legitimate reason (rationale) for bumping mdadm to 4.2 in focal and a list of changes (or at least new features) added between 4.1 and 4.2. If we can get these in order + maybe get some insight into what exact testing you, at Intel, perform on mdadm, we can get the new version into focal-updates.

I assume the most difficult would be the list of feature changes. This is a requirement as we need to know in advance if there's any changes that could potentially break existing users and for us to request additional targeted testing. Maybe we could figure something out here?