Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)

Stefan Potyra stefan.potyra at informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Fri Feb 22 12:14:51 GMT 2008


Hi,

Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 12:50 schrieb Sarah Hobbs:
[..]
>
> >> As far as i'm aware, it still classes under the new MOTU feature
> >> freeze process, and so should still have a bug, as it's a bug fix
> >> release.
> >
> > Oh, this again.. I continue to fail to see the point of me having to do
> > additional paperwork just because I chose to use native versioning (so
> > every upload involves an "upstream" version bump).  Well, at least it'll
> > bost my LP karma a bit.
>
> I can't see the point in doing additional paperwork for bugfix-only
> releases,
> which will automatically get accepted either.  I raised objections while
> I was away,
> and they were either misunderstood, or ignored.  As the others had no
> problems
> with it, I suspect that the majority vote was taken.  So this is what
> we're stuck with.

Actually I read your last mail on Scott's proposal as "I want it, too". Sorry, 
if I misunderstood that.

>
> >> When I saw this earlier, and checked for an appropriate bug, I found
> >> nothing.  Why?
> >
> > Because I was more interested in fixing the bug than doing paperwork.
>
> Me too.  Like i say, I raised objections to it during the discussions,
> and they were
> ignored.  Because I disagree, should i then go and ignore the rules, and
> turn a blind
> eye to anyone else doing the same?  If that is the case, then what
> exactly is the point
> of having a MOTU Release team, if it does not have the power over what
> does, and does
> not get uploaded?
>
> After seeing multiple complaints about this new system, i'd suggest
> bringing it up at the MOTU
> meeting, but as I am in the MOTU release minority on this issue, my
> hands are somewhat tied.

Generally, I still believe that filing bugs for new bugfix upstream versions 
makes sense. First (as was already mentioned in the thread), it makes people 
think about what they are doing. Much more important however is, that it 
gives an indication about the state of a package for the release-team. For 
given candidates, I'm often interested in how many bugs are on LP when 
considering a new upstream version.

The interesting part for ubuntu-vm-builder however is, that it is a native 
package. For native packages, a new debian/ubuntu version is not clearly a 
new upstream version or not. Hence it's imo a grey area if an exception is 
necessary. Maybe for these, everbody should decide for him/herself if an 
exception necessary or not?

Cheers,
     Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080222/ff8113f1/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list