On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:58 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > 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.
Great. I know for Ubuntu One at least, we try to align with the schedule and meet the freeze deadlines and requirements as best as possible, though sometimes we do have to slip. However, I also push for my team at least to not have to do freeze exceptions unless it's absolutely required, and try to be as strict about what we can or can't put in our stable branches (and the accompanying releases) at that point, as the SRU and release teams would be, since I'm the one doing the packaging for all our projects. -- 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
