hurry before FFe

Stefan Potyra stefan.potyra at informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Wed Apr 2 15:27:19 BST 2008


Hi,

On Wednesday 02 April 2008 16:23:00 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.

yes, I wasn't implying to change the policy document, just how it gets 
executed.

> >
> >> (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.

Agreed. Now that FinalFreeze is approaching soon, let's try to do better. I'll 
send a mail out later explaining the details, ok?

Cheers,
     Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20080402/8aa8b6a4/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Motu-council mailing list