Releasing Alphas and Betas without "freezing"
stgraber at ubuntu.com
Thu Jun 21 19:45:16 UTC 2012
On 06/21/2012 03:34 PM, Robbie Williamson wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 02:00 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
>> On 06/21/2012 02:34 PM, Robbie Williamson wrote:
>>> So we've clearly heard the opinion of Kubuntu...are there any other
>>> derivatives who wish to contribute to this discussion. I for one, would
>>> be interested in knowing/hearing how these suggested changes impact them.
>> Starting with just a bit of nitpicking but it's something we agreed at
>> UDS that we'd try to get fixed in everyone's mind :)
>> We're "flavours" not "derivatives", "flavours" are fully integrated in
>> the Ubuntu project and have been recognized as such by the various
>> governance boards. I usually consider "derivatives" as referring to our
>> downstreams like mint where they're indeed a derived product.
> Fair enough, but then this wiki page probably needs changing to reflect
I also thought that page was wrong initially but it's actually kind of
You'll notice that the flavours are listed separately under a flavours
heading on that page, and what's listed afterwards are proper
"derivatives" as in, out of the archive, custom spin based on Ubuntu.
I guess we could argue that the flavours probably shouldn't be listed on
that page at all to make it clearer.
Kate also reminded me on IRC that she has an action item to at least
remove mentions of derivatives across all the official Ubuntu websites.
The wiki will always be trickier as people (such as that DerivativeTeam
I never heard about) can write whatever they want...
>> Now, speaking for Edubuntu, we don't feel like we could increase our
>> testing frequency as we'll be increasing the number of platforms that
>> we'll be supporting this cycle, don't have a lot of testers and
>> generally don't feel the need for it.
>> In the past we were only supporting a desktop installation on i386 and
>> amd64. This cycle we're extending the desktop support to i386, amd64 and
>> On top of that, we'll be introducing Edubuntu Server this cycle, that'll
>> still be installed from our single media but will add a good dozen of
>> extra services to test.
>> The upstreams Edubuntu is working with are perfectly aware of our
>> milestones and freeze periods and make sure their releases land on time
>> so we have to ask for very little freeze exceptions or last minute
>> upload (I don't think we asked for much more than 2 FFe last cycle).
>> Changing the way we work after we agreed on the release schedule for
>> this release would confuse our contributors and upstreams with no clear
>> benefit for us.
>> There are plenty of really good changes to the archive that are planned
>> for this cycle as part of the archive reorg and increasing the use of
>> -proposed, still with my Edubuntu release team hat on I don't think
>> piling up changes is a good idea.
>> I'd rather we do what we agreed on at UDS, try to encourage additional
>> daily testing (because that never hurts, doesn't cost any development
>> time and is beneficial) and discuss the next steps at the next UDS when
>> we have concrete feedback on how these changes went.
> Thanks for the feedback Stephane. I think you've make some valid and
> reasonable points that we should consider.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-devel