Diff for "FoundationsTeam/Specs/MaverickRemovePackageCulling"

MaverickRemovePackageCulling

Differences between revisions 1 and 2

Launchpad Entry: foundations-m-package-culling
Created: 3 May 2010
Contributors:
Packages affected: many

Summary

Find and aggressively deal with packages whose merges have been lagging for several releases.

Release Note

Not particularly user-visible; no release note necessary.

Rationale

Slow merges damage our reputation with Debian, and lead us to fall behind on bug-fixes.

Design

You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.

Implementation

This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:

UI Changes

Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this

Code Changes

Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.

Migration

Include:

data migration, if any
redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.

Test/Demo Plan

It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release. Please add an entry to http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Coverage/NewFeatures for tracking test coverage.

This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.

Unresolved issues

This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.

BoF agenda and discussion

Use this section to take notes during the BoF; if you keep it in the approved spec, use it for summarising what was discussed and note any options that were rejected.

= Packages with lagging merges =

Divide problematic packages into various classes:

 * Permanently forked from upstream, no intention to remerge:
  * *Rename*
 * Permanently forked from Debian but not upstream, no intention to remerge:
  * *Blacklist*
 * Debian derived from Ubuntu:
  * Generally *blacklist*, but it's worth keeping an eye on the Debian package
 * We just haven't got round to merging
  * *Merge* for Maverick!

== Algorithm ==

 * Acquire snapshot index of Debian unstable at Karmic DebianImportFreeze
 * Any package with a newer version in that snapshot than currently in Maverick, and that is not blacklisted, is an important target for merging


Look at set of packages that have been removed from Debian, but that we may have kept because we had an Ubuntu delta
 * Colin believes that `process-removals` may not in fact act this way nowadays, but it's still worth checking
 * Perhaps `process-removals` *should* act this way for safety, but we should regularly maintain the list

CategorySpec

FoundationsTeam/Specs/MaverickRemovePackageCulling (last edited 2010-05-21 13:33:34 by 82-69-40-219)

-  ⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2010-05-03 15:53:33 → 
  Size: 2604
  Editor: eth0
  Comment:
+   ← Revision 2 as of 2010-05-21 13:28:34 → ⇥
  Size: 3149
  Editor: 82-69-40-219
  Comment: dump from UDS
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 Line 6:
- * '''Packages affected''':
+ * '''Packages affected''': many
 Line 10:
-This should provide an overview of the issue/functionality/change proposed here. Focus here on what will actually be DONE, summarising that so that other people don't have to read the whole spec. See also CategorySpec for examples.
+Find and aggressively deal with packages whose merges have been lagging for several releases.
 Line 14:
-This section should include a paragraph describing the end-user impact of this change.  It is meant to be included in the release notes of the first release in which it is implemented.  (Not all of these will actually be included in the release notes, at the release manager's discretion; but writing them is a useful exercise.)

It is mandatory.
+Not particularly user-visible; no release note necessary.
-Line 20:
+Line 18:
-This should cover the _why_: why is this change being proposed, what justifies it, where we see this justified.

== User stories ==

== Assumptions ==
+Slow merges damage our reputation with Debian, and lead us to fall behind on bug-fixes.
-Line 63:
+Line 57:
+{{{
= Packages with lagging merges =

Divide problematic packages into various classes:

 * Permanently forked from upstream, no intention to remerge:
  * *Rename*
 * Permanently forked from Debian but not upstream, no intention to remerge:
  * *Blacklist*
 * Debian derived from Ubuntu:
  * Generally *blacklist*, but it's worth keeping an eye on the Debian package
 * We just haven't got round to merging
  * *Merge* for Maverick!

== Algorithm ==

 * Acquire snapshot index of Debian unstable at Karmic DebianImportFreeze
 * Any package with a newer version in that snapshot than currently in Maverick, and that is not blacklisted, is an important target for merging


Look at set of packages that have been removed from Debian, but that we may have kept because we had an Ubuntu delta
 * Colin believes that `process-removals` may not in fact act this way nowadays, but it's still worth checking
 * Perhaps `process-removals` *should* act this way for safety, but we should regularly maintain the list
}}}

Ubuntu Wiki