Updated archive rebuild results
Long time no see... And 1474 packages failed to build! http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi - Lucas -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2010-12-02
On Dec 03, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote: >Great to see that you like sponsor-patch. Check out sponsor-patch from >ubuntu-dev-tools 0.107 (Debian experimental and soon Ubuntu natty), >which supports sbuild as builder! Very cool! -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2010-12-02
Am Donnerstag, den 02.12.2010, 17:47 -0500 schrieb Barry Warsaw: > Probably the tool I used most was sponsor-patch(1), part of the > ubuntu-dev-tools package. It's a great little tool for grabbing the source > branch and applying either a patch or merge proposal, then building the source > package. I tend to use sbuild instead of pbuilder, so the --build option > isn't as helpful to me. Great to see that you like sponsor-patch. Check out sponsor-patch from ubuntu-dev-tools 0.107 (Debian experimental and soon Ubuntu natty), which supports sbuild as builder! -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Patch pilot report 2010-12-02
I just finished my stint as patch pilot, so here's a quick report about my experience. It's really the first time I've ever done any extensive work on the sponsorship queue. In the past, I've thought that I couldn't really contribute much because I do not (yet ) have upload rights. It's definitely true that not having such rights makes things a bit more difficult, but it's also true that it shouldn't stop anyone! I think there's valuable work that can be done even if you can't upload. I hope it was helpful for me to spend the time doing the research to understand the bug, examine the proposed change, cross-reference the fix with upstream and/or Debian, do a local build, and then comment on the merge proposal. The way I approached the sponsorship queue was to tackle the issues that appeared to have no other comments. It can be depressing when you do good work and it just languishes with no feedback at all - positive or negative. So I wanted to get at least a comment on as many such items as possible. I did spend the better part of my day working on the sponsorship queue. I'm used to the Launchpad world where we spent a full day as "on-call reviewer" and nobody else was signed up for today, so I felt a full day was most appropriate. Probably the tool I used most was sponsor-patch(1), part of the ubuntu-dev-tools package. It's a great little tool for grabbing the source branch and applying either a patch or merge proposal, then building the source package. I tend to use sbuild instead of pbuilder, so the --build option isn't as helpful to me. Here are the items I worked on. I kind of wish I could have been more productive, but being my first time I didn't have a good sense of whether I was being too thorough or not thorough enough in my research and reviews. It should be easier next time. * approved mp for bug 633036 and created debdiff; assigned bug to mvo * https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/ubuntu/maverick/php5/fix-mssql-segfault/+merge/35476 * https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/ubuntu/karmic/mysql-dfsg-5.1/mysql-sru-343870/+merge/35366 * https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/ubuntu/maverick/rrdtool/maverick-libdbi-soname-change/+merge/35607 * https://code.launchpad.net/~serge-hallyn/ubuntu/maverick/multipath-tools/fix-crash-on-shutdown/+merge/35674 * https://code.launchpad.net/~james-page/ubuntu/natty/xorg-docs/fix-682621/+merge/42214 * https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/ubuntu/natty/libdbi/upstream-0.8.4/+merge/42296 -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Improving UDS
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 11:36 -0800, Jono Bacon wrote: > * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at > the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks > think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and > instead just have 'tags' for sessions (e.g. you add a session > and tag it from a limited set of tags). Do you think this would > be a better approach? > * Track Leads - there seemed to be some confusion surrounding the > expectations and responsibilities of track leads. How do you > feel track leads could be most effective in helping the UDS > experience? I think these are related. One thing that I think was lost with this UDS was a sense of "ownership" of a particular track. I felt like before the track leads knew what was on their track, and why it was there. This created a certain amount of continuity. What I think happened is that the number of sessions got overwhelming for the track leads, there was no way to keep up. Which is true. So what I'd propose is have a set of "focused tracks" where there is strong leadership from the track leads. And then have a set of un-tracks that are loosely aligned, but allow for the breadth of materials that UDS covers. --Ted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Improving UDS
Hi All, Today I had a discussion with some of the other organizers of UDS, and we have been reviewing some of the feedback from the survey and we have some areas in which we would like to improve. I wanted to highlight these areas and ask for your feedback to help us make better choices. These areas are: * Tracks - some of the feedback received was that the tracks at the last UDS were confusing and complex. What did you folks think of the tracks? One suggestion is that we ditch tracks and instead just have 'tags' for sessions (e.g. you add a session and tag it from a limited set of tags). Do you think this would be a better approach? * Lower Cloud Attendance - we noticed that the Cloud track was less interesting to folks at UDS. The cloud is a key area in which Ubuntu can compete - what do you think we can do to make that content more interesting? * Track Leads - there seemed to be some confusion surrounding the expectations and responsibilities of track leads. How do you feel track leads could be most effective in helping the UDS experience? Thanks for your feedback! Jono -- Jono Bacon Ubuntu Community Manager jono(at)ubuntu(dot)com www.ubuntu.com : www.jonobacon.org www.twitter.com/jonobacon : www.identi.ca/jonobacon -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: SSH and the Ubuntu Server
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > I'm going to redraft the proposal, note that there was no general > consensus on the matter in the ubuntu-devel@ mailing list, and ask the > Tech Board for guidance. Thanks everyone for the lively discussion. Thank you for the discussions at UDS, in IRC, and in this thread. Colin's changes to the server tasksel (moving SSH to the top of the list, albeit "unchecked") is a reasonable step towards improving the usability of the server installer. Let's just roll with this for now and evaluate its effectiveness next cycle. Thanks again! :-) :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Core Developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
