Hi Scott, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:34:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, September 19, 2013 18:30:17 Colin Watson wrote:
> > I've been working with the Ubuntu Touch folks to try to improve how > > they're landing changes. At the moment, to try to keep control of > > things in the run-up to 13.10, they're tracking all their landings in a > > spreadsheet and asking people not to upload things out-of-band from that > > that affect Touch images. A few of us saw some improvements to be made > > here and suggested using proposed-migration blocks instead of gatewaying > > uploads, in the hope that that will involve less many-to-many > > communication and make it easier to test and approve changes. > I happened to have recently run across a discussion about this > spreadsheet, so I am, merely by coincidence, aware of it. While almost > all of the packages on their list are on the phone image, some of them are > not limited to the phone, in particular qtwebkit 5.1.1 that was just > landed without a lot of discussion outside their team. I don't think such > general packages should be on a list of packages that Touch "controls". > qtwebkit-opensource-src is in both the Ubuntu Desktop and Kubuntu > packagesets. I don't know if you're suggesting the qtwebkit-opensource-src package landing was contrary to protocol (in violation of the feature freeze?); you say "without a lot of discussion", but that's not the same thing as no discussion, and this seems to have been explicitly approved by Jonathan as an FFe in bug #1219695. So I'm not sure what the concern is there. I don't think it's being suggested that the Touch team would "control" these packages in the sense of being allowed to make changes to them that don't fall under the existing FFes, only that they would have a sensible mechanism for controlling how and when changes that *are* covered by FFes land in the release pocket. > This completely unannounced list of packages they don't want people to > touch, doesn't help much if it's not announced. This needs to go to > U-D-A, but it does need (as you did put it) to be in form a request. We > don't have maintainer locks on packages in Ubuntu and that's an > organizational feature we should maintain. The reason it wasn't announced is that it was understood both that Ubuntu developers outside of Canonical aren't answerable to Canonical management, and that the risk originates entirely within the Canonical team due to ongoing feature development targeting 13.10 for Ubuntu Touch. Although Colin didn't say so explicitly, I think the logical extension of this is that community members are *not* required to coordinate their changes with the folks managing the Ubuntu Touch landing, regardless of which mechanism is used for coordination within Canonical. So in the context of the spreadsheet, it was entirely appropriate to ask for the folks within Canonical who were working on the Qt 5.1 landing to coordinate that with respect to other changes landing on the phone images; but that doesn't imply either that the team has been given carte blanche to make *other* changes to qtwebkit, or that community changes are expected to pass a gauntlet with the Touch team before they can be accepted into the archive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
