Re: SRU Minor Release Exception for Ceph
2013/2/8 James Page : > Background > - -- > > Ceph was included in Ubuntu main during the 12.04 release cycle; since > then upstream Ceph have started maintaining LTS releases of Ceph; > Quantal shipped with the 'argonaut' LTS release and Raring will ship > the 'bobtail' LTS release. What does LTS mean for Ceph? How long do they expect to support it for? Are the bobtail and argonaut releases indicative of the frequency of LTS releases? In other words, can we reasoably expect to have a fresh LTS in each Ubuntu release? If not, have you given any thought to how you'll handle the situation where our release cycle doesn't line up well with upstream's LTS releases? > Ubuntu Ceph Testing > - --- [...] > In addition, we are currently setting up regular testing of Ceph > 'standalone' in multi-node configurations to support more in-depth > testing of ceph itself. This will include basic smoke testing of key > components to start with and may expand to include executing upstream > regression tests on the packages we publish/propose for inclusion in > the Ubuntu archive. I think this is a must-have. If upstream already has a good test suite, we should as far as possible be using that in our testing as well. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re:Re: Flavor Review Request of UbuntuKylin
Hi Martin, all, Thanks for your time and suggestions. We will prepare the actions asap and contact you via email. -- Regards, Jack Yu NUDT At 2013-02-19 06:20:24,"Martin Pitt" wrote: >Hello Jack, all, > >Jack Yu [2013-02-18 23:45 +0800]: >> I'm Jack Yu from UbuntuKylin team. We are applying to be an official >> recognition as a formal member of the Ubuntu family, commencing with >> UbuntuKylin 13.04. I have added an review request in the Technical >> Board agenda and you can find the detail of UbuntuKylin at >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuKylin. > >Thanks for taking the (rather inconvenient for you) time to show up at >today's Tech Board meeting and discuss some details! The discussion >left a few things to clarify and change, please see the meeting log: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard/TeamReports/13/February > >Can we follow up on this either by email or on the next meeting on >March 4? > >Thank you! > >Martin > >-- >Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de >Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
Re: Minutes of the Technical Board meeting 2013-02-18
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:23:44PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > * System Assistant, Photo Handling: These two are not Chinese specific, > >but should rather be done in the general Ubuntu context; System > >Assistant sounds like the old computer-janitor, a potential successor > >of which should be implemented in software-center proper > > While I agree that these are not Chinese-specific and that this is best > implemented as part of Ubuntu directly, and we should encourage and assist > this, that doesn't seem like the kind of detail that the TB needs to be > involved in. Do you agree that the Kylin team can make their own decisions > about whether and when it's strategic to temporarily diverge from Ubuntu on > some of these points? I realize that this by itself is not a strong > justification for a different flavor, but it also shouldn't count against > them, right? I think flavours can and do make sensible decisions about this kind of thing. The people who run our existing flavours generally have the basic understanding that it's in everyone's interests for common facilities to be maintained in common, rather than having everyone go off on their own; they also understand when pressing requirements dictate otherwise in the short term. What I think is important at this stage is that we establish this kind of shared understanding with the UbuntuKylin team up-front, so that we can trust that they'll make sensible decisions later. Since diverging too much too soon is a not uncommon mistake that causes problems down the line, it seems worth checking early. > > * The TB recognizes that requiring already existing upload rights is not > > * something we can enforce in this case, and that developer merits > > * should be acquired while working on Kylin instead. This should be > > * reviewed in six months, until then the Foundations team has agreed to > > * be formally responsible for the flavour and help out with mentoring, > > * sponsoring, and release engineering. > > So the actual quote during the meeting appears to have been: > > I guess I'll be talking with slangasek on whether he'd be > happy to be a temporary flavour lead for Kylin (or have > Foundations do that) until they are familiar enough with > everything and have upload rights to do all that themselves > > As he and I haven't had that conversation yet, I don't think this has > actually been agreed so far. :-) > > Can you clarify what it would mean to be "formally responsible" here? > Speaking for Foundations we are interested in helping the UbuntuKylin team > get up to speed and integrated into the Ubuntu developer community so they > can be self-sustaining. I'm a bit concerned that Foundations being > "formally responsible" for anything here could get in the way of that goal, > by leading people to have conversations with us that they should instead be > having directly with the UbuntuKylin folks. I realize there's a > bootstrapping question here, and that it's hard to ramp up a new flavor if > you're not already an Ubuntu developer, and therefore mentorship and support > will be required. But I'm keen to ensure it's understood that this *is* > support, not leadership - the real leaders of UbuntuKylin are people in > China like Jack, who have a direct understanding of the requirements. Right, this is more a matter of a sort of regular meta-sponsor rather than a leader. The point of the UbuntuKylin flavour vs. the current Chinese Edition images is that UbuntuKylin is run by people with their feet on the ground who know what they're doing directly, rather than operating at one remove. We're working our way through https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors here, and this is our first test of that process for the task of approving an entirely new flavour. My feeling is that when we wrote the documentation we were envisaging something like Lubuntu that had been in preparation in the Ubuntu archive for several release cycles before it became official, rather than something like this which started only quite recently and whose developers don't yet have Ubuntu upload permissions and the like. As a result we have a bit of a bootstrapping problem with clauses such as "Image has track record of community interested in creating, supporting and promoting its use" and "Flavor lead identified and responsive though 6 month cycle". I think what we've settled on is that, with support, we can start getting daily builds up and running based on where UbuntuKylin is right now. They can't yet operate without sponsorship, advice, and general advice, and I don't think the TB would be acting responsibly in approving a new flavour without making sure that that framework would be in place for them. But I think we are all on the same page that the goal is for the UbuntuKylin team to meet "Guidelines to become and remain a reco
Re: Minutes of the Technical Board meeting 2013-02-18
Hi Martin, Thanks to the TB for their thoughtful consideration of the UbuntuKylin flavor application. On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:23:44PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > * System Assistant, Photo Handling: These two are not Chinese specific, >but should rather be done in the general Ubuntu context; System >Assistant sounds like the old computer-janitor, a potential successor >of which should be implemented in software-center proper While I agree that these are not Chinese-specific and that this is best implemented as part of Ubuntu directly, and we should encourage and assist this, that doesn't seem like the kind of detail that the TB needs to be involved in. Do you agree that the Kylin team can make their own decisions about whether and when it's strategic to temporarily diverge from Ubuntu on some of these points? I realize that this by itself is not a strong justification for a different flavor, but it also shouldn't count against them, right? > * The TB recognizes that requiring already existing upload rights is not > * something we can enforce in this case, and that developer merits > * should be acquired while working on Kylin instead. This should be > * reviewed in six months, until then the Foundations team has agreed to > * be formally responsible for the flavour and help out with mentoring, > * sponsoring, and release engineering. So the actual quote during the meeting appears to have been: I guess I'll be talking with slangasek on whether he'd be happy to be a temporary flavour lead for Kylin (or have Foundations do that) until they are familiar enough with everything and have upload rights to do all that themselves As he and I haven't had that conversation yet, I don't think this has actually been agreed so far. :-) Can you clarify what it would mean to be "formally responsible" here? Speaking for Foundations we are interested in helping the UbuntuKylin team get up to speed and integrated into the Ubuntu developer community so they can be self-sustaining. I'm a bit concerned that Foundations being "formally responsible" for anything here could get in the way of that goal, by leading people to have conversations with us that they should instead be having directly with the UbuntuKylin folks. I realize there's a bootstrapping question here, and that it's hard to ramp up a new flavor if you're not already an Ubuntu developer, and therefore mentorship and support will be required. But I'm keen to ensure it's understood that this *is* support, not leadership - the real leaders of UbuntuKylin are people in China like Jack, who have a direct understanding of the requirements. 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 Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
