TechnicalBoardAgenda

Please use this page to add items for the Agenda of the Ubuntu Technical Board. Please see the [http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/processes/governance Ubuntu Governance] page for details on participation.

The next meeting of the Board will be on:

2006-03-14 at 2000UTC

in channel #ubuntu-meeting on chat.freenode.net. The agenda will include the following:

• Review [https://launchpad.net/people/ubuntu-core-dev/+members core developer candidates]

• Review [https://launchpad.net/people/ubuntu-dev/+members developer candidates]

• PaulSladen: I was granted main upload at TB in January 2005... but didn't use it owing to not producing usplash in the required timeframe. Since January 2006 I've actually been motivated to do sensible amount of Ubuntu related-work and I'm finding it frustrating, particularly relating to one-liner fixes where the overhead of multiple updates via the bugtracker is largest.

  • http://people.ubuntu.com/~fabbione/irclogs/archived/2005-01/ubuntu-meeting-2005-01-18.html | grep -A20 ^06:48.*sladen

• ColinWatson: Should we produce new installer and CD images for this [http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-262-1 serious installer vulnerability]? At present, users installing Breezy must make sure to upgrade from -security before adding any other local users, which I think will result in a number of vulnerable systems in practice. On the other hand, it's not as if we can rev shipit CDs at this point.

• Mark's Proposal for additional QA and localisation time on Dapper, if this happens, TB needs to break down the extra time on different schedule freezes(?)

  • http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2006-March/000094.html

  • From morning meeting: <Seveas@> how about making an almost-there release apri 20 and call for wide testing?

• PaulSladen: If there is a 6week hold, of which one of the mentioned aims is vendor Certification, does this allow the import of new code? The example I have in hand is that Linux Emporium (who sell pre-installed ThinkPads in the UK) report needing newer 'madwifi-ng' to support the Lenovo ThinkPad Z60*'s newer atheros chip. They also want i810 rotation code for support of the IBM ThinkPad X41Tablet fully (support in FD.org CVS since the new year). Whilst the atheros support is fairly clearly "it doen't work so it's a bug", the xrandr support is closer to a feature request. Should exceptions be requested to allow certification requested by vendors?

• PaulSladen: Syncs from external repositories. I've noticed a few people doing fake uploads of duplicate packages into order to speed up the development cycle. The benefits for/against uploading to Ubuntu or Upstream (eg. Debian) and then syncing back are:

  • To Ubuntu:

    • + Faster turn-around time (eg. 1hour to downloadable package) for users, something Ubuntu excels at.

    • - Each Ubuntu upload introduces a delta against upstream, something Ubuntu is trying not to do.

  • Via Upstream and then back:

    • + Encourages the notion that feeding-back to upstream is important

    • - May slow down the development cycle and can cause continued filing of duplicate bug-reports

  • Since anyone with upload priviliges can in theory perform an upload with an arbitrary higher version number, is simultantious uploading of identical packages to both archives (a) a good compromise (b) that should be encouraged (c) does launchpad cope with still seeing it as an import?

    • Simple import: eg. Subject to UVF exception granted, identical maintainers, current patches being dropped, et al

• Other business
  • Update the agenda for the next meeting

CategoryUbuntuTeams