[ANN] What with all these releases ?

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/19/2010 8:58 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 19 September 2010 09:31, Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> ... because they don't need so much individual verification of the changes?
> 

Reading the MRE page, it definitely seems more about packages that are
"stable but don't fit the SRU guidelines". I saw that Martin Pitt
pointed out the same thing.

The big thing is figuring out why there is so much friction for us. From
the time we cut a new .x release, to how we can get it into -updates.

- From what I read of the responses, it should have already been
happening. (aside from running the test suite either as part of the
build, or as part of a post-install test.) TBH I don't know if our test
suite is install-clean. I know it isn't on Windows, though we want to
fix that (by at least skipping tests that want 'python' available.)

>>>     > - 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.
> 
> Three technical board members replied and they seem quite positive
> (indeed quite flattering).
> <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-September/000506.html>
>  They have one specific request which is that as part of the process
> we should run 'selftest' on the packaged form, which makes sense.
> (It's probably often done now, but perhaps it should be written down).
> 
> I expect at the next TB meeting it will be formally approved and then
> added to the micro release approval list.
> 
> I think we still need a figurehead bug to kick off an update?
> 

Figurehead bugs seem pretty easy, we have a whole milestone listing all
20 or so bugs we fixed. :)

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyXaK0ACgkQJdeBCYSNAAM1/gCfbmO24jkGE7RzUUItgx+W5HNQ
i5kAoNW4dbW30vaS7RdyjB/xEP2o2ss0
=IViT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----