Good Morning, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Stephan Hermann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> Stephan Hermann wrote: >>>> That's how I see it, too. If a new upstream fixes serious bugs, we >>>> should bring it in...(not forgetting the paperwork and an ack from >>>> motu-release) >>> I think you misread his proposal. There's no need for an ACK from >>> motu-release >>> if the new release is bug-fix only. That's why UpstreamVersionFreeze was >>> changed >>> to FeatureFreeze, to allow bug-fix-only releases without needed the >>> paperwork. >> No :) >> MOTU => new release fixes bug => upload >> NON-MOTU => new release fixes bug => needs paperwork => needs ack => >> upload > > That would be an ack from a MOTU (an ack as in a "looks ok, let's upload"), > and > not from motu-release as you said initially. But of course non-MOTUs need ACKs > from MOTUs, but that's to do everything, as they can't do anything by > themselves :)
Yeah, but after sleeping over it, I think it's too easy, and I think many people will spam us with new versions because they fix simple bugs, but introducing new features. I would like to see (and in the case I need to do something like this) at least a bug report with the rational and some background why we did it. Actually it's a 3 minute report, which wouldn't be a bad thing. > What I wanted to say is that we shouldn't require paperwork for something > which > was changed to avoid it (UVF -> FF) in case of bug-fixes-only releases. Well, wine releases are bug-fixing-only releases with lots of features ;) \sh -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
