Community flavors and new images

Alex Murray alex.murray at canonical.com
Tue Jan 10 11:13:02 UTC 2023


On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 10:29:03 +0000, Robie Basak wrote:

> My thinking is along the same lines. I'd like to avoid tying up things
> in bureaucracy, so I think it's fine to leave it to the Release Team to
> decide if it's obviously and uncontroversially aligned, or if they are
> unsure if the Technical Board would agree and therefore need to refer
> it.
>
> I'd like for these decisions to be documented though. Maybe we could ask
> that the technical-board@ list be copied in with an description of the
> goals of the new image and the Release Team's decision on it? That way,
> we can ensure that we all stay aligned, and minimise pain if we're
> not.

I think this makes a lot of sense - if it is up to the discretion of the
Release Team to refer to the TB then there could be cases that get
missed which would have been beneficial for the TB to be aware of but
for whatever it was not deemed necessary to notify the TB. So instead if
the policy is that the TB is always kept-in-the-loop regardless there
should be less chance of something being missed.

Also given that new images are a pretty rare occurrence, this shouldn't
be too onerous on either team as a result.

>
>> flavour process (the one in the works), I think we still need to make
>> sure we assess the type of the image that the given flavor is adding
>> and make sure that it's still in-line with the flavor that the TB
>> approved. The TB is responsible for making sure that the flavour, and
>> its images, are in line with the goals of the Ubuntu project. I don't
>> think it's needed to reaffirm this in every case when a new image is
>> to be added, but the release team needs to make sure to cycle back to
>> the TB in case there's doubts that this is still the case.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 07:27, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > In light of the recent activity on clarifying policies and procedures for
>> > new flavors, I thought it was appropriate to bring this question to the TB
>> > for review.
>> >
>> > The Xubuntu team are proposing to have a new official Xubuntu image called
>> > Xubuntu Minimal (né Core) and have raised MPs to get it landed on the
>> > centralized build infrastructure
>> > (https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-dev/debian-cd/+git/debian-cd/+merge/435314
>> > et al).
>> >
>> > In the past, flavors (including Ubuntu) have introduced new images without
>> > requiring additional TB approval; e.g., Kubuntu Active, Lubuntu Next, and
>> > the Ubuntu Desktop canary image.  These were all handled directly through
>> > the Release Team.
>> >
>> > I think this makes sense, because there are no governance questions here; if
>> > there is already a flavor team responsible for one image, we just need to
>> > make sure they're taking responsibility for 2, with the existing team, seed
>> > structure, etc.
>> >
>> > Do you agree?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
>> > Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
>> > Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
>> > slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
>> > --
>> > technical-board mailing list
>> > technical-board at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
>>  Foundations Team
>>  Tools Squad Interim Engineering Manager
>>  lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
>>  www.canonical.com
>> 
>> -- 
>> technical-board mailing list
>> technical-board at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
> -- 
> technical-board mailing list
> technical-board at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board



More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list