| iulian | tumbleweed: Re: FFe you've just approved. I was just about to hit the enter key but it suddenly came to my mind that I should refresh first and then post the comment. | 15:08 |
|---|---|---|
| iulian | Heh. | 15:08 |
| tumbleweed | :) | 15:14 |
| tumbleweed | I do notice a large proportion of FFe requests are coming from ubuntu-release members. Are we much more conciencious? or is the team just staffed by people who do stuff? | 15:16 |
| infinity | Both. | 15:24 |
| infinity | But spoken with my release hat on, I prefer not to self-approve for fear that someone will see it as an abuse of privilege, so I suspect many of us seek out reviews to cover our asses politically. ;) | 15:25 |
| iulian | Heh. | 15:28 |
| Laney | yeah, I wouldn't self approve (but I would for backports, since crack there is fun \o/) | 17:38 |
| iulian | :) | 17:46 |
| tumbleweed | well, it's the exact opposite of self-approving. ubuntu-release team members ask for approval, other people do so less :) | 19:07 |
| slangasek | ScottK: based on what I'm seeing so far going through the libssl0.9.8 NBS, I'm thinking we might want to do a repeat of "removal of unbuildable binaries" for oneiric. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-March/030509.html | 21:43 |
| micahg | slangasek: there are about 100 packages left for the transition and people have been chopping away at it | 21:46 |
| slangasek | micahg: so far I've looked at two of these packages, and both had compound FTBFS issues in Debian | 21:47 |
| slangasek | which suggests to me that the remaining packages are in pretty bad shape, and we're going to wind up with most of them uninstallable by release time anyway due to libssl0.9.8 binary removal | 21:48 |
| micahg | slangasek: makes sense, I'm assuming this wouldn't happen until the end though? | 21:48 |
| slangasek | micahg: last time we did the removals about a month before release; one of the effects of doing it too close to release is that it doesn't give people who care about those packages to react to the removals and fix up the source | 21:49 |
| slangasek | (which means that the archive admin who did the removals winds up getting private email from users complaining... :) | 21:50 |
| micahg | ah, ok, well that makes sense, 1 month should be enough time to drive the rest of the transitions through | 21:50 |
| tumbleweed | presumably only poeple upgrading to the devolpment release would notice removals | 21:50 |
| tumbleweed | those already running it probably wouldn't | 21:51 |
| slangasek | tumbleweed: yes - but equally, only people upgrading to the development release are likely to actually help with fixing binaries going missing | 21:51 |
| tumbleweed | sure. I'm just saying if it was left late, many people who could help may not notice. (Although one hopes they'd read the announced removal list) | 21:52 |
| slangasek | ah, could be | 21:59 |
| micahg | actually, ones that are clearly bad, there are only 35 for the ssl transition (not including FTBFS transition builds) | 22:01 |
| tumbleweed | that's small enough to be individually triaged before removal | 22:03 |
| tumbleweed | but I'm assuming there are people who have already skimmed most of them | 22:03 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!