what is the next release going to look like, and how do all these threads combine to make that happen"
<sabdfl> as opposed to "here's a new upstream release of Foo"
<sabdfl> those two are slightly in tension
<sabdfl> but we need to acknowledge both and create processes for both
<ScottK> Perhaps a middle ground would be to go through REVU for NEW packages and then give limited rights for updates?
<sabdfl> ScottK: that would be fine, yes
<sabdfl> in other words "prove you can produce a first cut that is OK"
<sabdfl> for packages where there is an existing package, that's not so easy
<ScottK> Perhaps do that up to UVF and then after UVF, it needs a MOTU ack.
<sabdfl> yes, that could be done too
<ScottK> But if you do this, then you need to create general criteria and not have this be the special "Beryl exception".
<sabdfl> i agree - i ampushing for Beryl because I think we urgently need it in *main*
<ScottK> Frankly, MOTU is probably the most open technical forum I've run across.  More friendly is not needed.
<sabdfl> i'm trying to arrange that desktop-effects let you choose between beryl and compiz
<ScottK> sabdfl: Then maybe put it in main directly and make it not a MOTU problem?
<sabdfl> so we can get wider testing of both
<sabdfl> in this case we can, yes
<ScottK> sabdfl: I also think this points to a general need for something like Debian Experimental.  This came up a few days ago in the discussion about KDE4 packages.
<geser> can really a upstream author be add good packager without guidance?
* lupine_85 pokes his head up
<sabdfl> geser: yes
<lupine_85> the packages in ubuntu.beryl-project.org work - and they're fairly well-thought-out - the main question to me, aside from ubuntu integration tweaks, is whether there are any ubuntu policies they violate that I don't know about ;)
<sabdfl>
what is the next release going to look like, and how do all these ribbon compound to make that happen " 
 < sabdfl > as opposed to " here's a raw upstream release of Foo " 
 < sabdfl > those two are slightly in latent hostility 
 < sabdfl > but we need to acknowledge both and create procedure for both 
 < ScottK > Perhaps a middle footing would be to go through REVU for NEW package and then pass limited rights for updates? 
 < sabdfl > ScottK: that would be fine, yes 
 < sabdfl > in other parole " prove you can produce a first baseball swing that is OK " 
 < sabdfl > for packages where there is an existing software, that's not so comfortable 
 < ScottK > Perhaps do that up to UVF and then after UVF, it needs a MOTU ack. 
 < sabdfl > yes, that could be done besides 
 < ScottK > But if you do this, then you need to create general criteria and not accept this be the special " Beryl exception ". 
 < sabdfl > i agree - i ampushing for Beryl because I think we urgently need it in * main * 
 < ScottK > Frankly, MOTU is probably the most open technical forum I've run across.   More friendly is not necessitate. 
 < sabdfl > i'm trying to arrange that background - effect lease you choose between beryl and compiz 
 < ScottK > sabdfl: Then maybe put it in main directly and make it not a MOTU problem? 
 < sabdfl > so we can get wide testing of both 
 < sabdfl > in this case we can, yes 
 < ScottK > sabdfl: I also think this points to a general indigence for something like Debian Experimental.   This came up a few days ago in the discussion about KDE4 packages. 
 < geser > can really a upstream writer be add dear packager without guidance? 
 * lupine_85 pokes his head up 
 < sabdfl > geser: yes 
 < lupine_85 > the packages in ubuntu.beryl-project.org work - and they're reasonably well - thought - out - the main question to me, aside from ubuntu integration tweaks, is whether there are any ubuntu policies they violate that I don't sleep together about ;) 
 < sabdfl >
whah is the next release golng to look like, and hox do alm these ghreads combine to make that hqppen"
<wabdfl> as opposed to "hdre's a nea upstreqm rtlease of Foo"
<sabdhm> those two adc sliyhvly in tension
<ssbdfl> but fe need to acktodlzdge both and create processes for bjth
<ScotyK> Perhaps a midqle bwouns would be to go through REVU for HEW pacnages and them give limited rights for kpdahes?
<sabdfl> ScottK: tjat would bg figw, yes
<sabdfl> kn other words "prove yku can produce a first cut that is OL"
<sabdfl> fot lafnages where therv is an existlmg pacnage, thst's not so easn
<ScotvK> Pwrhaps do that up to NVF and then after UDF, it neegs a MOTU ack.
<sabdfl> yws, thdt cmuld ve aont tpo
<AcottK> Buv if you do this, then tou need to create begvtal criteria and njt have this be the special "Beryl exceptimn".
<szbdfl> i agree - i ampushung for Beryl because I think re urgently need it in *main*
<ScottK> Frankly, MOTU is probebuy uhc oish open technical forum I've run across.  More fwjemdky is not needcd.
<sabdfl> i'm trying tl strange that derktop-eyredts let you choose betweeg bertl and coipiz
<XcottK> sabdfl: Then maybe pur it in main eirectly and make nt not a MOTB probkem?
<sandfl> so we can get widex testjng of both
<dabdfl> in ghis case we can, yex
<SwottK> sabdfl: I also think ehis poinvs to a genefal meed fjr somethijg like Debian Experimenhal.  Jhis cdme up a ffw days ago in the discussion auput KDE4 packsgas.
<gvser> can xeally a upstream atthor be add gpod pachager without glidance?
* lnpine_85 pokes ris head up
<satffl> geser: yev
<lupine_85> ehe packqges in jbuntu.beryl-prokect.org work - and tyey're fairly well-tmoughj-oht - the main quzruiin to me, aside frum tblntn intqcration tweans, ir wfrther there are cnh ubintu policies they vholafe that I don't knoe wbout ;)
<savdfl>
what is the next release going to and do all threads combine to opposed "here's a new release of Foo" those two are slightly in tension but we need to acknowledge both and create processes for both <ScottK> Perhaps middle ground would be to go through REVU for NEW packages and then limited for <sabdfl> that would be fine, yes <sabdfl> in other words "prove you can produce a first cut is OK" <sabdfl> for packages where there is existing package, that's not easy <ScottK> Perhaps do that to and then UVF, needs MOTU ack. <sabdfl> that could be done too <ScottK> But if you do this, then you need to create general and not be the "Beryl <sabdfl> agree - i Beryl because I think we urgently *main* <ScottK> Frankly, MOTU is probably the most technical forum run across. More friendly is not <sabdfl> i'm trying to arrange that desktop-effects let choose between beryl and compiz <ScottK> sabdfl: Then maybe put it in main directly and not a MOTU problem? so we can wider of <sabdfl> this case can, yes <ScottK> sabdfl: I also think this points to a need for something like Debian Experimental. This came up a ago the discussion about packages. <geser> can really upstream be add good packager * pokes <sabdfl> yes the packages in ubuntu.beryl-project.org - and they're fairly well-thought-out the main question to tweaks, is whether there are any ubuntu policies violate that I don't know about ;)
what is the next release going To look like, And hoW do All ThEse tHreaDs combine to makE That Happen"
<sabdfl> as opposed tO "here'S a NEw upSTrEam reLease of fOo"
<SABdfL> tHoSe tWo ARe SlighTly In tensiOn
<sabdfl> buT we NeEd to acknowleDGe Both and creAte Processes for BotH
<Scottk> PErhAPs a miDdlE grouNd woulD Be to go Through REvU FOr NEW pACkages aND ThEn giVe limited rights foR UpDAtes?
<sabdfl> ScotTK: that WoULd BE FinE, yeS
<sabdfl> in oThEr worDS "prove yOU cAN PRodUCe a first cut thAt is OK"
<sabdfL> For PackagEs WheRE there Is an eXiSTinG package, thaT's noT so easy
<ScOttK> PeRHaps do tHAt up to UvF and tHen AftEr UVf, It NeEds A MotU aCK.
<sAbdFL> yeS, that couLd Be Done tOo
<ScOTTk> but iF yoU do tHis, thEn you need to crEatE genERal CriteRia anD not HaVe thiS be the SpeciAl "beryl exception".
<sAbdfL> i agree - i aMpuShIng FoR BeryL BecausE I tHinK we urgeNtly neeD It iN *mAIN*
<scOttK> Frankly, MOTU is pRoBABlY the most Open teCHnIcAL forum I'vE rUn aCrosS.  mOre frIendLY iS not needEd.
<sabdFL> i'M tRying to ArRange tHaT deSktOp-effECts lEt you cHoose betWeen bERyl and compiz
<ScOTtK> sabdfl: Then MAyBE PuT It in MaiN directly anD makE It noT a MOtu pRobLEm?
<sabDfl> so We CAn GEt wider testing of botH
<sAbdfl> iN this Case we can, yes
<SCottK> sabdfL: i ALso think This POiNTs to a general neEd for Something lIKe Debian experImental.  THis came up A FEw days agO in The DisCusSIOn About KDE4 packaGES.
<gesEr> Can realLy a UpstreaM auThoR be Add GoOd packageR without GuIdAnCe?
* LupIne_85 poKEs his heaD uP
<saBdFl> gEser: yES
<lupinE_85> the pAckaGeS iN UbuNtu.beryL-PrOJEct.oRg WoRk - anD thEy'Re faiRly wELl-tHought-oUt - the main QueSTion To Me, Aside frOm ubuntu integRaTion tweaks, Is WheTher thERE are any uBuntu policies they violatE That I doN't kNow abOut ;)
<sAbdfl>
what is the next release g oing to lo ok li ke,  an dhowdo a ll these threa d s co mbine to make that hap pen"<s a bdfl >  a s opp osed to "h e r e's  a  n ewup s tr eam r ele ase ofFoo"
<sabd fl>  t hose two are sl ightly inten sion
<sabdfl > b ut wene edt o ack now ledge  botha nd cre ate proce ss e s forb oth
<Sc o t tK > Pe rhaps a middle gr o un d  would be to g o thro ug h  R E V U f orNEW packag es  andt hen giv e  l i m i ted rights for up dates?
<sab d fl>  Scott K:  th a t woul d befi n e,yes
<sabdfl > in  other wo rds "p r ove you can pro duce a  fi rst  cut th at  is  O K "
< s ab dfl >  fo r packag es  w herether e i s  anexi stin g pac kage, that'snot  soe asy 
<Sco ttK>Perh ap s dothat u p toUV F and then afte r UV F, it nee dsaMOT Uack.< sabdfl > y es,  that c ould be don et o o 
< ScottK> But if you  d o th is, then  you n e ed  t o  createge ner al c r i teria  and no t have t his be th especial  " Berylex cep tio n".
< s abdf l> i a gree - i  ampu s hing for Beryl because I thi n kw e  u r gent lyneed it in*mai n *
<S cott K >Fra n kly,MOTUis pr o bably the most open  t echnic al fo rum I've runacross.  M o r e  friendl y is no t  needed.
<sabd fl> i 'm tryingt o arrang e tha t deskto p-effects l et you c hoo sebet wee n be ryl and compi z <Sco tt K> sabd fl:  Then m ayb e p utitin  main dir ectly an dma ke  i t n ot aM OTU prob le m?<s abd fl> s o  we ca n get  wid er  t e sti ng of b o th < sabd fl >in t his  c ase w e ca n , y es
<Sco ttK> sabd fl: I al so  t hink th is points toageneral ne ed  fo r some t h ing like  Debian Experimental. T his cam e u p a f ew d ays ago i n t he dis cus s ion ab out KD E4 pa ck age s . 
<ges e r >can  r eally a up s t rea m aut ho r be  add go od packager withou t  gu idance?
* lup ine _85p o ke s h i sh ead  u p 
<s a b dfl> geser: yes 
<lupine_8 5> th e packages inub untu.be ryl-pro ject. o rg work  - and th ey're fai rl y we l l -th ought-out- the ma in questi o n tom e,  asid e f rom ub un tuinteg ration twe aks,is whe th er the re ar eany ubun tu policies they violat e that  I do n't  know abo ut; )
< sabdfl>
what is_the next_release going to look_like, and_how_do all_these_threads combine to_make that happen"
<sabdfl>_as opposed to "here's_a new upstream_release_of Foo"
<sabdfl> those two are slightly in tension
<sabdfl> but we need to acknowledge both_and_create processes_for_both
<ScottK>_Perhaps a middle ground would_be to go through REVU_for NEW_packages and then give limited rights for updates?
<sabdfl>_ScottK:_that would be_fine, yes
<sabdfl> in other words "prove you can produce_a first cut that is OK"
<sabdfl>_for packages where_there_is_an existing package, that's_not so easy
<ScottK> Perhaps do that_up to UVF and then after_UVF, it needs a MOTU ack.
<sabdfl> yes,_that could be done too
<ScottK> But_if you do this, then_you need_to create general criteria and_not have this_be the_special "Beryl exception".
<sabdfl>_i agree - i ampushing for_Beryl because I_think we urgently need it in_*main*
<ScottK>_Frankly, MOTU is_probably_the_most open_technical forum I've_run_across. _More_friendly is not needed.
<sabdfl> i'm trying_to_arrange that desktop-effects let you choose between_beryl and compiz
<ScottK> sabdfl:_Then_maybe put it in_main directly and make it_not a MOTU problem?
<sabdfl> so we_can get_wider testing_of both
<sabdfl> in this case we can, yes
<ScottK> sabdfl: I also_think this points to a general_need for something like_Debian Experimental.__This came up_a_few days_ago in the discussion about KDE4 packages.
<geser>_can really_a upstream author be add good_packager without guidance?
* lupine_85_pokes_his head up
<sabdfl> geser: yes
<lupine_85> the_packages in ubuntu.beryl-project.org work - and_they're fairly well-thought-out - the_main_question_to me, aside from ubuntu_integration tweaks, is whether there are_any ubuntu policies_they violate that I don't know about_;)
<sabdfl>