Scheduling for UDS

Robie Basak robie.basak at
Tue Aug 27 07:58:13 UTC 2013

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 04:55:01PM -0400, Chuck Peters wrote:
> I would like to see someone take the lead on making sure we have latest
> stable releases of some software.

I agree. Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like to see us more up-to-date,
too, and I agree with having a session discussing some ideas.

Note that we're *very* close to Feature Freeze now, and after that we'll
need to make a very good case and apply to the release team for
exceptions. But we can certainly talk about it, do what we can before
feature freeze, and work on a plan to get updates in sooner next cycle.

One idea to get us started:

I worked with Daviey on to get
this report working again this cycle, as a first step towards keeping
things better updated. But this report is still a little unwieldy. I'd
like to add a supression list to this, to hide (or put to the bottom)
packages that we (server team) can actively acknowledge in the report.

I imagine that this would work with something like a CSV file that we
could keep updated in bzr, with package, version and reason fields. Then
anything where Debian is behind the version column for a particular
entry would be moved to the bottom. Example:

vsftpd,3.0.2-3,Insignificant changes; no need to merge.
screen,*,Substantional merge; generally left by the server team.
python-novaclient,2:2.14,Ubuntu is currently ahead of Debian on this package

Also, perhaps we should put outstanding merges above outstanding syncs
(which appear after Debian Import Freeze).

Another idea: mark top level packages that Server users care about more
directly (so that we can place them above libraries and support
packages, for which the latest version matters less). Example: the
versions of vsftpd, exim4 and php5 probably matter more to users than
the versions of libibverbs, screen and socat that we ship.

All of these I can just work on without a session, though.

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list