hurry before FFe

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:59:41 +0200 Soren Hansen <soren at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:18:06PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
>>> What should we do about it, though?
>> I guess one measure is a gradual freeze policy, which starts out with
>> a very soft layer of thin ice at the beginning, and gets to an
>> unbreakable barrier at the end of the freeze. 
>
>I don't think the policy itself needs to change. Especially in ways that
>are impossible to evaluate objectively.
>
>> (I tried to apply this measure for this cycle, with almost waiving
>> through new packages at the beginning). Of course such a policy must
>> also be made well known (which didn't happen this cycle yet, sorry for
>> this).
>
>I think this is the core of the issue. We can keep the policy we have
>now, and somehow make it more transparent that getting an FFe approved
>shortly after FF is usually not very difficult.
>
>The MOTU team is still relatively young and lots and lots of our
>policies have changed imcompatibly multiple times. For anyone who's not
>very active, it can be hard to keep up. Heck, *I* have a hard time
>keeping up from time to time. And that's just the policy as it's
>written. Keeping up with the current interpretation of policy is even
>worse. We need to fix this.
>
I think process churn is declining and I agree we need to be vigilant about 
minimizing it.  It does seem that historically motu-uvf/release has 
re-invented itself each release.  We now have an FFe process that's been 
blessed by MOTU at a meeting and so this should help.

What would've helped in this case is if motu-release had been in place 
sooner there would have been less uncertainty about who to approach so that 
it could have been pre-coordinated.

Scott K