On Monday, November 05, 2012 01:19:51 PM Rodney Dawes wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote: > > ... > > > > > There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around > > > the dash search, that went in after various freezes were in effect. > > > > ... > > That's also true of the shopping bits of dash search itself, so without > > time travel, having it be any way is impossible. Perhaps if Canonical > > had decided to work within the existing Ubuntu release process, this > > could have been landed earlier with a lot less heat/light since there > > would have been lots of time to consider the best approaches for various > > issues. > > I don't know all the specifics of how they went in, or the exact course > of process they took, but I do know they landed after freezes, and part > of 'within the existing Ubuntu release process' includes 'sabdfl > override' which the feature itself may or may not have fallen under. > > Either way, some of the changes landed extremely late (even after the > feature itself), to help address some of the user concerns. That was > the only point I'm making. I don't disagree that it would be better if > some of the teams would align better with the release process. It > certainly would be. However, there are also also some issues with doing > that as relates to the Canonical 'skunkworks' projects which Mark also > blogged about recently. > > I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release > Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the > Canonical projects' involvement in that process, with the appropriate > members of Canonical staff, including Mark (who is on TB anyway). Again, > another discussion that would have been great to have at UDS with > everyone in the same room, but which seems to perpetually get > complaints, and perhaps not discussed at appropriate times.
It was extensively discussed at UDS-R and I believe things will go better in the next cycle. I realize that Mark's SABDFL veto is part of existing Ubuntu processes. I don't have any disagreement with his authority to do so. I do think it is mistaken for development teams (generally, but not inevitable) from inside Canonical that plan on getting in that way. Scott K -- 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
