Re: Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)
Sarah Hobbs wrote: > I can't see the point in doing additional paperwork for bugfix-only > releases, > which will automatically get accepted either. Totally agreed. I also raised my disagreement, but the explanation to this policy was that this would mean that MOTUs (btw note that this also affects core-devs uploading to universe) will think about the upload twice, and will read the changelog and ensure it's a bug-fix only release. I understood it at that moment, but thinking about it again I can't agree with it, for 2 main reasons: 1) If we trust MOTUs to upload anything to the archive, why don't we trust them to just upload bug fixes before FeatureFreeze? I also see this similar to the self-freeze for the Hardy alphas. The Release Managers don't require core-devs filling a bug with the changelog. They just trust them, and everything should be working fine so far, as otherwise they wouldn't have done it for 5 alphas. 2) After uploading these two [1] [2] changelogs (specially the first one) from [3] I feel somewhat stupid :) > After seeing multiple complaints about this new system, i'd suggest > bringing it up at the MOTU > meeting, but as I am in the MOTU release minority on this issue, my > hands are somewhat tied. I'll try to make the meeting and raise this there too. But I'd like to propose this: 1) We don't require any paperwork at all. If it's bug-fix only, just upload (or request a sync). 2) If there are problems with this (as in people uploading non-bugfix-only releases) we reconsider it. Thoughts? Emilio [1] http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12134194/changelog.diff [2] http://launchpadlibrarian.net/12134253/changelog.diff [3] https://launchpad.net/bugs/193953 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)
Hi, Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 12:50 schrieb Sarah Hobbs: [..] > > >> As far as i'm aware, it still classes under the new MOTU feature > >> freeze process, and so should still have a bug, as it's a bug fix > >> release. > > > > Oh, this again.. I continue to fail to see the point of me having to do > > additional paperwork just because I chose to use native versioning (so > > every upload involves an "upstream" version bump). Well, at least it'll > > bost my LP karma a bit. > > I can't see the point in doing additional paperwork for bugfix-only > releases, > which will automatically get accepted either. I raised objections while > I was away, > and they were either misunderstood, or ignored. As the others had no > problems > with it, I suspect that the majority vote was taken. So this is what > we're stuck with. Actually I read your last mail on Scott's proposal as "I want it, too". Sorry, if I misunderstood that. > > >> When I saw this earlier, and checked for an appropriate bug, I found > >> nothing. Why? > > > > Because I was more interested in fixing the bug than doing paperwork. > > Me too. Like i say, I raised objections to it during the discussions, > and they were > ignored. Because I disagree, should i then go and ignore the rules, and > turn a blind > eye to anyone else doing the same? If that is the case, then what > exactly is the point > of having a MOTU Release team, if it does not have the power over what > does, and does > not get uploaded? > > After seeing multiple complaints about this new system, i'd suggest > bringing it up at the MOTU > meeting, but as I am in the MOTU release minority on this issue, my > hands are somewhat tied. Generally, I still believe that filing bugs for new bugfix upstream versions makes sense. First (as was already mentioned in the thread), it makes people think about what they are doing. Much more important however is, that it gives an indication about the state of a package for the release-team. For given candidates, I'm often interested in how many bugs are on LP when considering a new upstream version. The interesting part for ubuntu-vm-builder however is, that it is a native package. For native packages, a new debian/ubuntu version is not clearly a new upstream version or not. Hence it's imo a grey area if an exception is necessary. Maybe for these, everbody should decide for him/herself if an exception necessary or not? Cheers, Stefan. pgp7gr0ZPxIRt.pgp Description: PGP signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Soren Hansen wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:22:43PM +1100, Sarah Hobbs wrote: >>> This is a bugfix release that fixes a few typos (well, several >>> instances of the same typo, really), and fixes a call to qemu-img >>> that breaks because I added more sanity checks to qemu-img and this >>> particular call was bit lacking in the sanity department. >> Even so, where is the bug? > > Line 892 of ubuntu-vm-builder. Oh, you mean bug *report*? Yes. > >> As far as i'm aware, it still classes under the new MOTU feature >> freeze process, and so should still have a bug, as it's a bug fix >> release. > > Oh, this again.. I continue to fail to see the point of me having to do > additional paperwork just because I chose to use native versioning (so > every upload involves an "upstream" version bump). Well, at least it'll > bost my LP karma a bit. I can't see the point in doing additional paperwork for bugfix-only releases, which will automatically get accepted either. I raised objections while I was away, and they were either misunderstood, or ignored. As the others had no problems with it, I suspect that the majority vote was taken. So this is what we're stuck with. > >> When I saw this earlier, and checked for an appropriate bug, I found >> nothing. Why? > > Because I was more interested in fixing the bug than doing paperwork. Me too. Like i say, I raised objections to it during the discussions, and they were ignored. Because I disagree, should i then go and ignore the rules, and turn a blind eye to anyone else doing the same? If that is the case, then what exactly is the point of having a MOTU Release team, if it does not have the power over what does, and does not get uploaded? After seeing multiple complaints about this new system, i'd suggest bringing it up at the MOTU meeting, but as I am in the MOTU release minority on this issue, my hands are somewhat tied. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHvrcA7/o1b30rzoURAtI7AKC5zujGGpGygVoy61FnFuH/7SxIHQCaAgJb 1JT/xjNxdCEtiGJtfHCaAZg= =Euxf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:22:43PM +1100, Sarah Hobbs wrote: >> This is a bugfix release that fixes a few typos (well, several >> instances of the same typo, really), and fixes a call to qemu-img >> that breaks because I added more sanity checks to qemu-img and this >> particular call was bit lacking in the sanity department. > Even so, where is the bug? Line 892 of ubuntu-vm-builder. Oh, you mean bug *report*? > As far as i'm aware, it still classes under the new MOTU feature > freeze process, and so should still have a bug, as it's a bug fix > release. Oh, this again.. I continue to fail to see the point of me having to do additional paperwork just because I chose to use native versioning (so every upload involves an "upstream" version bump). Well, at least it'll bost my LP karma a bit. > When I saw this earlier, and checked for an appropriate bug, I found > nothing. Why? Because I was more interested in fixing the bug than doing paperwork. -- Soren Hansen Virtualisation specialist Ubuntu Server Team http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Soren Hansen wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35:14AM -, Soren Hansen wrote: >>* New release. > > Sorry, that was a little.. um.. terse :) > > This is a bugfix release that fixes a few typos (well, several instances > of the same typo, really), and fixes a call to qemu-img that breaks > because I added more sanity checks to qemu-img and this particular call > was bit lacking in the sanity department. > > Even so, where is the bug? As far as i'm aware, it still classes under the new MOTU feature freeze process, and so should still have a bug, as it's a bug fix release. When I saw this earlier, and checked for an appropriate bug, I found nothing. Why? Hobbsee -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHviPj7/o1b30rzoURAsktAKCDWEnEm+SE3F+ulDwGVIklEhPqFwCeIiDs fTo32S/wWM/q9yOTMnjx+oE= =uxWb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Accepted: ubuntu-vm-builder 0.2 (source)
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35:14AM -, Soren Hansen wrote: >* New release. Sorry, that was a little.. um.. terse :) This is a bugfix release that fixes a few typos (well, several instances of the same typo, really), and fixes a call to qemu-img that breaks because I added more sanity checks to qemu-img and this particular call was bit lacking in the sanity department. -- Soren Hansen Virtualisation specialist Ubuntu Server Team http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
