[14:56] <zequence> I'm wondering if it's possible to add new features to an installer for a point release. Backporting is probably not going to do it.
[14:57] <zequence> The flavor in question is Ubuntu Studio, so not vanilla
[14:57] <xnox> zequence: depends on what the feature is and will need approval from the sru-team.
[14:58] <xnox> zequence: e.g. UEFI & SecureBoot support was introduced in 12.04.2 and was not present in .0 nor .1. But that did fall under hardware-enablement SRU.
[14:59] <zequence> xnox: I'm dropping trying to get ubuntustudio-live in this late. Lack of time, and it's getting way past FF. But, the LTS is worth polishing.
[15:01] <zequence> I was thinking of adding the additional plugin(s) to our existing ubuntustudio-live-settings instead, and trying to SRU it, once we got it working for 14.10
[15:05] <xnox> zequence: i'm not sure what you'd gain from it. Most people upgrade, thus whatever features/options install offers must also be possible to get via manual actions on installed/upgraded machine.
[15:06] <xnox> zequence: changing installer is risky, but i guess run it by the sru-team.
[15:07] <xnox> zequence: when ubuntu-one page was developed, it did land in the installed, disabled-by-default.
[15:07] <xnox> zequence: later when testing via boot-time option uncovered nasty issues, we delayed enabling ubuntu-one page by one release.
[15:08] <xnox> zequence: so do land as much code as you can, but keep it disabled / under feature flag until it's ready. that way it would be easier for you to test the built/live cds as well.
[15:17] <infinity> zequence: You still have 6 weeks before release, surely you can get your bits in and tested?
[15:37] <zequence> I'm not really that worried it won't work. There's plenty of time for testing until 14.04.1. More worried about time and quality, really
[15:54] <xnox> zequence: ship it, if it would need fixing, it will be sru-worthy bugfix for .1.
[15:55] <xnox> zequence: ubiquity as shipped in precise .1 was very different from ubiquity shipped in precise .0. We did drop plugins and fixed a of bugs.
[21:51] <bdmurray> slangasek: there was some discussion about webapps and extensions go through the SRU process at some UDS recently right?
[22:07] <bdmurray> slangasek: found it
[22:08] <bdmurray> Anyway, shouldn't the saucy upload of unity-chromium-extension reference an SRU bug?
[22:36] <slangasek> bdmurray: yes, I don't think the discussion at UDS changed the overall shape of the process, including the requirement for SRU bugs for tracking
[22:36] <slangasek> bdmurray: also, I'm pretty sure we only talked about expedited SRUs for webapps, not for extensions
[22:37] <slangasek> (well, I say that as someone who didn't make it to the actual session ;)
[22:37] <bdmurray> slangasek: right I found the blueprint / wiki page and they were related to only webapps
[22:39] <bdmurray> slangasek: so who would I ping about this sync request?
[22:40] <slangasek> ah, whoever requested it?
[22:40] <bdmurray> The Ubuntu Archive Robot? or is there somewhere else to look
[22:41] <slangasek> hmm
[22:41]  * slangasek tries to see
[22:42] <slangasek> where was it synced from/to?
[22:42] <bdmurray> from the SRU staging ppa
[22:43] <slangasek> whose SRU staging ppa?
[22:43] <bdmurray> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-unity/+archive/sru-staging
[22:43] <slangasek> ah
[22:43] <slangasek> so I don't know if a reject generates a mail to whoever requested the sync