Hello, On 04/22/2018 01:40 AM, Tim wrote: > Obviously Ubuntu GNOME no longer builds ISO's however I would like to > chip in on this discussion with a few thoughts based on past experience. > Feel free to do with them what you wish, its not meant to be criticism > in any way of the current proposal, but more just something to think > about. Sorry I didnt reply earlier, just haven't had the spare time!
Thanks for taking the time to reply. > First my gut feeling is your going to see less community participation > because there is no tangible outcome, obviously this will vary depending > on the flavours community, some my do better, some may do worse. The goal is to have established testing weeks increase the number for *everyone* while lessening the burden for everyone. > From a technical perspective having the archive frozen was quite useful, > it allows you to focus on a fixed target, rather than getting distracted > by a moving target that may well introduce further bugs. Actually, I have typically seen more bugs *fixed* immediately after a milestone release than introduced. Also, if we didn't have to spend our time working hard to release a product (Alphas and Beta 1), we could focus on improving and refining QA (both automated and manual) and spend time on that instead. > LIkewise for > giving the flavour leads control over re-spins rather than depending on > daily builds. Flavor leads do have control over respinning images, but they don't have control over stopping them (maybe just pressing the "disable" button?); we have yet to hear back from the Ubuntu Release Team on that. > I would also agree at times, that is was somewhat > restrictive at times, but a semi-frozen archive where flavours had more > control over the flow of packages, could lessen that (auto-accept > flavour uploads perhaps, that don't overlap other flavours?). This would make the ISOs stale, thus proving the point of the images being "stale on arrival". ;) > I think > traditionally there have been too many milestones in a cycle (perhaps > somewhat biased by GNOME's late release cycle), however I still think > the milestones serve an important purpose. If Ubuntu GNOME were still > spinning ISO's, I'd probably advocate for a more hybrid model, use the > more informal testing 'weeks' early in the cycle, then one beta and the > RC Milestones. This is precisely what I'm proposing. Get rid of Alpha 1, Alpha 2, and Beta 1, then rename "Final Beta" to just "Beta". Then we have the RCs, which aren't really a milestone. > As for the automated testing, I think is important, however my > recollections of so many milestone releases dealing with somewhat corner > case installer bugs, wonder how you will get 100% test coverage. Also > for some flavours the work maintaining these test cases may end up being > as much work as co-ordinating milestone releases. I would probably > recommend getting the automated testing in place before changing things > too drastically. I disagree; while putting in automated testing is definitely something that I believe in making a priority, we don't need to block on change for that. The goal is to "set it and forget it" (which, with the nature of how these tests are designed, can be done in that way), so while it may involve some initial investment, I think the return far exceeds the time spent. -- Simon Quigley tsimo...@ubuntu.com tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC 5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8 C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
