> I would be reluctant to approve a blanket FFe for this purpose, even for > a non-LTS. We had some bad experiences in the past with blanket FFe's. > What I would be willing to consider is a wider-range FFe for a selected > set of features (which should be more or less similar). Would that be > good enough?
Right, that's what the goal is here. > If yes, we would need this bug to be updated with the list and details of the > features (those that are breaking FF) that are planned to still land before > release. Build logs are currently not required of course (since the features > are probably still in the works), but an explanation for each of what > packages will be updated, a quick look at potential regressions that *in > theory* could get introduced by each and maybe a quick overview of the > current progress. All this doesn't have to be too detailed. > This way the release team will know that there is a well defined plan of > attack and what are the risks of all this not getting ready in time. The Phabricator task has intended features, but these aren't implemented yet, so it's kind of hard to assess potential regressions. ;) Namely: > New Calamares release ([ade] says it should be released on Wednesday at the earliest; should bring LVM improvements galore) > T32: Calamares should let the user pick what applications they WANT to use > Full disk encryption T29 > T54: Smart package removal > Also, do I understand correctly that these are *needed* for Lubuntu to > actually be in releasable-state? Yes. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1788904 Title: Blanket Feature Freeze Exception: Lubuntu's LXQt Transition To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lubuntu-meta/+bug/1788904/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
