Martin Pitt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Kate Stewart [2012-04-03 9:27 -0500]: >> If you've got better suggestions on how we can keep in synch with >who's >> doing what reviews, etc. I'm definitely interested. > >I propose that after final freeze an upload only gets accepted after >it gets two +1 from release team members on the bugs that it >addresses. Or the bug should say that it is not for precise final, in >which case it wouldn't get acks at all. That will provide us with an >asynchronous bookkeeping and track record. I confess to being unable to find the time to process in detail all the changes that are being proposed due to my work being very busy, but based on what I've read, I'm concerned. I know there have been a few problems now and then, but I fear the cure is much worse than the disease. It appears we are erecting a large set of bureaucratic scaffolding that will slow down and complicate everything for the sake of a few problems. We should be less worried about documenting than doing. How about instead of a bunch of new documentation requirements, we make the rule: don't accept something without reading #ubuntu-realease and if you're looking at something that maybe shouldn't go in, then say so in the channel. That would solve almost all the problems we've had that I'm aware of without imposing any additional overhead on the most common review and accept case. Scott K -- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
