Release Team Members: input requested...

[Kate Stewart]

On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 09:47 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Steve Langasek [2012-04-02 15:45 -0700]:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:59:16PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 02, 2012 04:54:43 PM Kate Stewart wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > 4/12 - Final Freeze[1] - ALL fixes should go into -proposed,  and
> > > >       only copied into -release after review meeting.  
> > > ....
> > 
> > > In that past we've started directing uploads to -proposed to make them
> > > available for SRU verification right at release.  I see some potential in
> > > the end game for this new use of proposed to conflict with the old one. 
> > > We should sort out how that's going to work in advance.
> 
> Actually, for packages where we are not 100% sure about, the nice
> thing with that is that we can have it in -proposed, test it, and at
> that point still decide whether we want to copy to -updates or
> release.
> 
> > Yes; furthermore, given that we have to manually approve any uploads through
> > the 'unapproved' queue anyway, if it's a fix that we know up front that we
> > want on the CDs and it doesn't cause archive uninstallabilities, it would be
> > more straightforward to just have these packages uploaded to the release
> > pocket instead of incurring the overhead of pocket copies.
> 
> I agree. Those should be the "100% sure" cases.
> 
> > The flipside is that we don't want to be having to bounce lots of packages
> > back out of -release and ask people to reupload to -proposed.  So maybe this
> > could be done as, "no uploads to the release pocket without prior sign-off"?
> 
> LGTM.
> 
Seems reasonable to me. 

Kate