steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Tue Mar 2 09:06:12 GMT 2010
Since there are no objections to the proposed diff, I've applied it now
(plus Daniel's correction). I'll send out an announcement mail in the next
day or so informing developers of the new procedure, then mass-migrate the
motu-release bug subscriptions over to ubuntu-release.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:35:26AM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > > I think the attached diff for FreezeExceptionProcess reflects the
> > > emerging consensus. Are there any objections if I apply this to the wiki
> > > and send out an updated freeze process mail to u-d-a?
> no objection, but still got a few questions:
> 1) how are FFe's handled? I assume that one ACK from a member of
> ubuntu-release suffices, correct?
Yes, that's the intent, consistent with my own feeling on the subject and
the feedback from Scott. The wiki changes reflect this, I think, by
removing all mentions of the two-vote requirement.
> 2) new packages: do we also just require one ACK there, or do we want two
> ACKs? Also, new packages was delegated from MOTU to motu-release (or rather
> motu-uvf which got renamed to motu-release later). Even later ubuntu-release
> was made a member of motu-release, acknowledging that ubuntu-release should
> always be able to decide for motu-release. Do we need a formal MOTU decision
> to transfer this responsibility? If so (please speak up if you anyone think
> that it's needed, otherwise I'll assume consensus), what is the current
> process to get this decision?
Effectively, the ubuntu-release team and the motu-release team are now
identical, so I don't think redelegation would be needed here.
As for a two-ack requirement on new packages, I have no strong feeling here
either, but I think a single ack from ubuntu-release should be sufficient as
it is for other exceptions. The wiki page mentions that the packages still
have to go through <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages>.
> 3) Universe used to have a later deadline for final freeze, to get latest bug
> fixes in. Past the deadline we used -proposed to get very late fixes in,
> handing over the queue to -sru. I think this could prove worthwhile again.
> Maybe we should replace universe with unseeded packages and decide later on
Yes, I agree that this probably needs to be s/universe/unseeded/. I don't
see any explicit mention of this on the wiki page, so I think the details
can be hashed out closer to the release.
> > WRT delegations: I think between Riddell and myself Kubuntu is already
> > well covered. In the past I was the server team delegate for Universe,
> > but the only purpose that served was to obviate the double ack rule.
> > Since we're getting rid of that rule, I think there's no need. I woulnd't
> > let getting delegation sorted out stop announcing thins.
> delegations also served to have the people with best knowledge cover an FFe.
> Teams not mentioned yet were we had delegates are:
> * mythbuntu
> * mozilla team
> * ubuntustudio
> * xubuntu
> * desktop (gnome)
> * netbook
> * edubuntu
> I'm not yet 100% sure how delegates fit in with the motu-release and
> ubuntu-release merge.
I for one am happy to see the delegation process continue, at least for
packages in universe (not to be confused with unseeded packages - obviously
a mythbuntu or xubuntu delegate only makes sense for seeded packages :). I
was never involved in delegate selection or observing closely how well
particular delegated decisions worked, so I'll defer to you guys regarding
who you think the delegates should be.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20100302/c505ef40/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the ubuntu-devel