Zest Zaphus - Beta 1

flocculant flocculant at gmx.co.uk
Tue Feb 21 23:08:53 UTC 2017

I assume this happened simply because images got added to B1 piecemeal - 
I know at one point Xubuntu was dated 0218 - then 0219 - because cron 
wasn't stopped so dailies got added as they happened to B1.

Normally whoever stops the build on Canonical side has set up the 
tracker (iirc), I know I certainly never did that in the last few 
cycles. So whoever 'was' adding things - caused the date issue I suspect.

As far as whether we need to respin - I can't answer that, nor am I too 
sure whether I'm that worried about it either as I've not decided which 
side of releasing/not releasing on Thursday I'm sitting on currently 
with the lock issue we have (and budgie and lubuntu iirc)


On 21/02/17 22:46, Simon Quigley wrote:
> Walter Lapchynski pointed out that the timestamps on iso.qa.ubuntu.com don't match up.
> Here's the current timestamps on all of the products:
> Kubuntu - 20170220
> Lubuntu Desktop - 20170220
> Lubuntu Alternate - 20170221.2
> Ubuntu Budgie - 20170219
> Ubuntu GNOME - 20170219
> Ubuntu Kylin - 20170219
> Ubuntu Studio - 20170219
> Xubuntu - 20170220
> I'm aware of the Lubuntu Alternate image respin, as Adam Conrad fixed an unusual build issue with the images and had to respin (thanks Adam!), but this is generally unusual for the other timestamps to be mixed up like this.
> I also remember that when I added Lubuntu builds to Beta 1, Lubuntu had 20170220 and the rest had 20170219.
> So what now? Do we respin images or do we keep them as is? Is this a bad thing?

More information about the Ubuntu-release mailing list