[ANN] What with all these releases ?

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> writes:

    > On 18/09/10 16:17, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    >> 3) packaging (including SRU and ppas)
    >> 
    >> This is mainly for debian and Ubuntu (I don't forget gentoo, FreeBSD and
    >> the others, but I'm less clear about the workflow there and whether
    >> several series are maintained or only a stable one, which would be 2.2
    >> in this case).
    >> 
    >> I know Max Bowsher has done a lot in this area but I'm unclear about
    >> exactly what, and what we need to do now. So, feedback welcome here.
    >> 
    >> Apart from updating the ppas (bzr-beta, bzr-proposed and bzr) here are
    >> the minimal actions we need to do for Ubuntu (based on
    >> http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=bzr&searchon=names&exact=1&suite=all&section=all):
    >> 
    >> - karmic-updates needs 2.0.6,
    >> - lucid/lucid-updates ? needs 2.1.3

    > lucid-updates (maybe, see below)

I'm open to discuss whether or not we should target karmic and lucid
given that we have the ppas for them (as well as hardy and jaunty).

    >> - maverick needs 2.2.1 (SRU)

    > maverick-updates (maybe, see below)

Martin has applied for the SRU MicroReleaseException (I thought I said
that in either mail or the wiki page, but obviously it's not there :-/).

    > As I see it, what we now need to do is:

    > 1. Debian packaging of 2.2.1. I'm neither DD or DM, it probably makes
    > most sense for someone who is to do this bit. (Because updating the
    > packaging to a new minor version is probably so trivial that it's just
    > as easy to do as to review someone else's doing of it)

That sounds like the easiest route indeed, any taker ?

    > 2. It's too late to sync this to Maverick, so no release-pocket Ubuntu
    > update this time around.

Yup, sorry for the confusion.

    > 3. I'm happy to sort out PPA uploads of 2.2.1 to bzr/proposed for
    > maverick,lucid,karmic,jaunty,hardy once the Debian packaging
    > branch has been updated (to avoid needless parallel merging of the
    > new upstream in the packaging branches).

    > 4. I'm also happy to sort out PPA uploads of 2.3b1 to bzr-beta-ppa/ppa.

    > 5. Individually for each of karmic, lucid, maverick, consider
    > whether to negotiate the Ubuntu SRU process.

This part is unclear for me, but I'm happy to learn.

    > On the Bazaar side, there seems to be some sort of expectation
    > that every series point release goes to -updates.

Don't cite me on this one ;-)

    > However, that's not really the normal criteria for an Ubuntu SRU,
    > per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#When .

This criteria:
,----
| # Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an
| obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than
| critical infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel).
`----
seems relevant though.

This one:
,----
| For new upstream versions of packages which provide new features, but
| don't fix critical bugs, a backport should be requested instead.
`----
clearly rules out 2.2 for karmic and lucid as well as 2.1 for karmic.
That's why I listed 2.0.6 and 2.1.3 for karmic and lucid.

If instead we decide to not bother with SRUs for them, then we should
just stop fixing bugs in 2.0 and 2.1...

    > We should discuss this, and resolve this difference of
    > expectations

+1

    > - perhaps by applying for a SRU MicroReleaseException for bzr:
    > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions

Yup, already done by Martin as said above, I don't think we got an
answer yet.

Thanks for all the bits !

I've updated http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/Releases/2.2.1 accordingly,
feel free to modify[1].

     Vincent

[1]: I know there are some existing pages related to the PPAs and I
     don't intend to replace them but instead make sure we use them
     correctly. Feel free to refer to them in the Releases/* pages.