Position Summary: Dapper Drake Release Management

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:19:06PM +1300, Andrew Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Mark Shuttleworth">
> > 
> > > Second, there's the question of syncing and UVF. Having listened to the
> > > debate I'm leaning to the camp that says that the major breakages we
> > > experience are all tied to feature goals, hardware (kernel), and X, which
> > > will all get revved in any event. I am therefor strongly in favour of
> > > syncing from Debian and upstream for the first few months of Dapper's
> > > existence, rather than continuing on the "core" of Breezy. I think we will
> > > get as many  bug fixes as new bugs, and we will ultimately get a better
> > > platform.
> > 
> > Major breakages are indeed tied to feature goals. Subtle breakage that we're
> > not keenly aware of is far more likely to arrive through unchecked changes
> > synchronised with Debian sid. Getting 'as many bug fixes as new bugs' is not
> > good enough for dapper - we won't be able to share bug exposure with breezy,
> > we'll have to spend more time testing instead of concentrating on merging
> > bug fixes only.
> > 
> > I think I would really only be comfortable trusting a wide open syncing
> > policy if UVF were brought forward to the two or four week point - much
> > shorter than our standard UVF timeframe!
> > 
> > But this is not so much about avoiding the major punch-in-the-face breakage
> > of our feature goal work, more about the stuff we don't see until it's too
> > late (that is, end user deployment time).
> > 
> > - Jeff
> >
> 
> As a MOTU I would welcome updating main, even if only for a little while, 
> otherwise the MOTU team will have a hard time of sorting out the tangled
> dependencies of universe->main with main frozen (which we had in post-UVF
> breezy).

Indeed, I personally know of a handfull of packages that couldn't go into
universe because their dependants were new versions in main, and it would be
annoying to have things not updatable because of this, with failed
builds, etc, and if we needed to do an update or somethign we'd have to
do rolled back versions (+revertedto) etc unless we make sure not to
sync things which we dont have the dependants for, etc, it could turn
into a rather nasty mess.

Trent

> However I know that it's Debian _unstable_ that we're syncing from, and a 
> mess of updated packages in main could suck quite a bit of time that could 
> otherwise be spent on getting our goals done in sufficient time to get
> serious testing (SELinux as my pet example). Perhaps a shift in freeze dates
> from breezy could be helpful, so that UVF & feature freeze occur earlier in 
> the cycle, and pushing the UVF date for universe to be later in the cycle.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Mitchell
> JID: ajmitch at jabber.org



> -- 
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel


-- 
Trent Lloyd <lathiat at bur.st>
Bur.st Networking Inc.