[ANN] What with all these releases ?

[Max Bowsher]

On 18/09/10 20:45, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> writes:
> 
>     > 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.

All I meant is that the SRU process involves extra effort for us, and
the Ubuntu SRU team, and this effort is mostly separate for each
separate distroseries - so we need to decide for which ones it is worth
the effort. However, a lot of that effort disappears if we get a
MicroReleaseException.

>     > 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.

That rather depends on whether you can define all the changes that
landed on the maintenance branch as "obviously safe".

> 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.

Right.

> 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.

Sounds good. We should find out what the current feeling and likely
timeframe is on this one, to know whether we need to do manual SRU
requests for these current releases.

> Thanks for all the bits !
> 
> I've updated http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/Releases/2.2.1 accordingly,
> feel free to modify[1].

Tweaked slightly.


Max.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100919/e2ed2b37/attachment.pgp