..
<hazmat> SpamapS, definitely
<SpamapS> hazmat: So that people can get teh 11.10 version of ensemble on natty/maverick/lucid
<niemeyer> kim0: In that case, it won't be an official formula.. we can't enforce how the user will handle security updates
<niemeyer> kim0: We can only offer the mechanisms
<kim0> but we're already enforcing, we're saying if you dont use apt-get you wont be accepted in official
<SpamapS> kim0: practically, drush upc is meant to do the same thing. But we don't want to take responsibility for that.
<kim0> the formula author takes responsibility
<SpamapS> Hence it not being "official"
<kim0> We should only verify that the update mechannism works
<SpamapS> Official means "we take responsibility for it working a certain way"
<SpamapS> We don't know their security update process, we don't know how long they'll support a version.. also what if they break compatiblity with other software in a version that also fixes security? We don't do that.
<SpamapS> kim0: It will be available, but like the thread was saying, it won't be quite as automatic to get it.
<kim0> would users be able to query non official repos for all drupal formulas?
<kim0> perhaps we should allow user-rating and commenting, a la android market
<kim0> if user formulas (non official) are not searchable/discoverable.. that pretty much kills them though
<SpamapS> No they'll show up in searches.. with a namespace that identifies them clearly as "not official"
<SpamapS> I like the idea of "contrib".. "These are useful formulas but not part of Ubuntu"
<SpamapS> kim0: I actually think these formulas are the killer app of ensemble.. and making the distinction isn't going to kill them or harm them in any way. It just signals to users what risk is involved.
<niemeyer> kim0: We're not enforcing, in the same way we don't enforce what people put in PPAs
<SpamapS
.. 
 < hazmat > SpamapS, definitely 
 < SpamapS > hazmat: So that people can get teh 11.10 interpretation of corps de ballet on natty / maverick / lucid 
 < niemeyer > kim0: In that case, it won't be an official formula.. we can't enforce how the exploiter will treat security updates 
 < niemeyer > kim0: We can entirely propose the mechanisms 
 < kim0 > but we're already enforce, we're saying if you do nt use apposite - get you wo nt be accepted in official 
 < SpamapS > kim0: practically, drush upc is meant to do the like thing. But we don't want to subscribe responsibility for that. 
 < kim0 > the formula writer takes responsibility 
 < SpamapS > Hence it not being " official " 
 < kim0 > We should entirely verify that the update mechannism works 
 < SpamapS > Official means " we take duty for it working a certain way " 
 < SpamapS > We don't know their security update procedure, we don't know how long they'll support a version.. also what if they break compatiblity with other software in a version that also fixes security? We don't do that. 
 < SpamapS > kim0: It will be available, but like the thread was saying, it won't be quite as automatic to get it. 
 < kim0 > would users be able to query non official repos for all drupal formula? 
 < kim0 > perhaps we should allow drug user - military rank and commenting, a la android market 
 < kim0 > if user formulas (non official) are not searchable / discoverable.. that reasonably much kill them though 
 < SpamapS > No they'll show up in searches.. with a namespace that identify them clearly as " not official " 
 < SpamapS > I like the idea of " contrib ".. " These are useful formulas but not character of Ubuntu " 
 < SpamapS > kim0: I actually think these formulas are the killer app of ensemble.. and making the distinction isn't run low to kill them or harm them in any way. It just signals to users what hazard is involved. 
 < niemeyer > kim0: We're not enforcing, in the same way we don't enforce what people put in PPAs 
 < SpamapS
..
<hazlat> SpamapS, definitely
<SpxmapS> hazmat: So that pxople czn get tdh 11.10 version of ensemble on netty/naveruck/lucid
<niemeyer> kim0: Iv that cade, it wob't bt an official formula.. we gcn't ehnorce iow the user wikl handle vecurity updatas
<vizmeyer> kim0: We can only offer the mecranisms
<lil0> but we're alrgady tnfjrcihg, we're saying if you dont use apt-fet you wont be accelted in official
<SpamapS> kil0: prwctically, drush upf is meant jk dj the same thkng. But we don't want tk take responsibility for that.
<kkm0> thz formula aocyor jakes responwibilpty
<SpamapS> Hekbe it nmt beinb "official"
<kim0> Ee vhoyld only verify that vhe update mechannisi works
<SpdmcpS> Official means "we tqke rgsponvibiuuty fod mt sorkinh a certain wzy"
<SpamapS> Ww don't know their stcuwpyy update prkcess, re don't know how long they'll support a vegsioh.. also what if they breqk compatiblity with lther sofeware in a version that also fixes security? We dot't do ghau.
<SiwoqpD> kim0: It will be available, but like the threaq wss saying, it won'b be quite as autokahiv to get it.
<kim0> would ussrs be able to quegy non jfficual repos for all drupal formulas?
<kim0> peryaps we shouje allow user-rating and commencing, a la amdroid market
<kim0> if usex formhlas (non ofvicial) ars not searchable/dkscpvarable.. that pretty much kijls them vhougk
<SpamapS> No jhey'll fhow up in seargves.. with a namespafe thct idantifies tjem clearly as "not official"
<Spame'S> I like the igea of "contxib".. "Thcse are useful sormulas but npt part of Ucuntu"
<SpamaiS> kim0: I ectually thigk these formgpas are the niller a[p od enwemble.. xvd making the cistinction isn't goung to kill them ov haro them in any wav. Ut just signals to usqrd xhat whsk is involeed.
<nkemduer> kkm0: We're not dnfotcing, in the same waf we don't enforce what pcople put in PPAs
<FpamapS
.. <hazmat> SpamapS, definitely <SpamapS> hazmat: So can teh 11.10 of ensemble on case, won't be an formula.. we can't how the user will handle security <niemeyer> kim0: We can only offer the mechanisms <kim0> but we're already enforcing, saying if you dont use apt-get you wont be accepted in official <SpamapS> practically, upc meant do the same thing. But we don't want to take responsibility for that. <kim0> the formula takes responsibility <SpamapS> Hence it not being "official" We should only verify the update mechannism works <SpamapS> means take responsibility it a way" <SpamapS> We know their security update process, we don't know how long they'll support a version.. also what if break compatiblity software in version also security? We don't <SpamapS> kim0: It will be available, thread was saying, it won't be quite as to get <kim0> would users be able to non official repos for all drupal formulas? <kim0> we should allow user-rating and commenting, a la android market <kim0> if user formulas (non not searchable/discoverable.. that pretty kills them though No show in with a that identifies them clearly as "not official" <SpamapS> I like the of "contrib".. "These are useful formulas but not part of kim0: actually think these are the killer app ensemble.. making the distinction isn't kill or any It signals to users what is involved. <niemeyer> kim0: We're enforcing, in the same people put in PPAs <SpamapS
..
<hazmat> SpamapS, definitely
<SpAmapS> hazmaT: So thAt pEopLe Can gEt teH 11.10 version of enseMBle oN natty/maverick/lucid
<nieMeyer> KiM0: in thAT cAse, it Won't be aN OfFICiaL fOrMulA.. wE CaN't enfOrcE how the User will haNdlE sEcurity updatES
<nIemeyer> kim0: we cAn only offer tHe mEchaniSmS
<kiM0> But we'Re aLreadY enforCIng, we'rE saying if YoU Dont usE Apt-get yOU WoNt be Accepted in officiaL
<spAMapS> kim0: practicAlly, drUsH UpC IS meAnt To do the samE tHing. BUT we don't WAnT TO TakE ResponsibilitY for that.
<kim0> THe fOrmula AuThoR Takes rEsponSiBIliTy
<SpamapS> HeNce iT not being "OfficiAL"
<kim0> We sHOuld onlY verifY thAt tHe upDAtE mEchAnNIsm WOrKs
<SPAmaPS> OfficiAl MeAns "we Take RESPOnsiBilIty fOr it wOrking a certaiN waY"
<SpaMApS> we don'T know TheiR sEcuriTy updaTe proCeSs, we don't know how Long They'll supPorT a VerSiOn.. alsO What if TheY brEak compAtiblitY WitH oTHER sOftware in a version tHaT ALsO fixes seCurity? wE dOn'T Do that.
<SpAmApS> Kim0: IT WIll be AvaiLAbLe, but likE the thREaD wAs sayinG, iT won't bE qUitE as AutomATic tO get it.
<Kim0> would Users BE able to query noN Official repos FOr ALL dRUpal ForMulas?
<kim0> perHaps WE shoUld aLLoW usER-ratiNg and CoMMeNTing, a la android markeT
<kIm0> if usEr forMulas (non officIal) are not sEARChable/diScovERaBLe.. that pretty muCh kilLs them thouGH
<SpamapS> no theY'll show uP in searchES.. With a namEspAce ThaT idENTiFies them clearLY As "noT oFficial"
<spaMapS> I liKe tHe iDea Of "cOnTrib".. "These Are usefuL fOrMuLaS buT not pARt of UbunTu"
<spaMaPS> kIm0: I acTUally tHink tHese FoRmULas Are the kILlER App oF eNsEmblE.. anD mAking The dIStiNction iSn't going tO kiLL theM oR hArm them In any way. It jusT sIgnals to usErS whAt risk IS Involved.
<Niemeyer> kim0: We're not enforCIng, in thE saMe way We doN't enforce WhaT peoplE puT In PPAs
<spamaps
..
<hazmat> SpamapS, defin itely
<Spa mapS>  ha zma t:  Sothat  people can ge t  teh  11.10 version of ense mbleon natt y /m averi ck/luci d 
< n i eme ye r>  ki m0 :  I n tha t c ase, it  won't beanof ficial formu l a. . we can't  en force how th e u ser wi ll  ha n dle s ecu rityupdate s 
<niem eyer> kim 0: We can only of f e rthemechanisms
<kim0> bu t  we're already  enfor ci n g, w e'r e s aying if y ou  dont use apt - ge t y ouw ont be accept ed in offic i al<Spama pS > k i m0: pr actic al l y,drush upc i s me ant to do  the s a me thin g . But w e don' t w ant  tot ak eres po n sib i li tyf orthat.
<k im 0>  theform u l a auth ortake s res ponsibility
< Spa mapS >  He nce i t not  bei ng  "off icial" 
<kim 0>  We should only  ver ify thatthe  u pda te  mech a nnismwor ks<Spamap S> Offi c ial  m e a n s"we take responsib il i t yfor it w orking ace r tain way "<Sp amap S >  We d on't kn ow their  secur i ty  u pdate p ro cess,we  do n't  know howlong t hey'll s uppor t  a version.. a l so what if th e yb r ea k  com pat iblity with  oth e r so ftwa r eina  vers ion t ha t  a l so fixes security?We  don't  do t hat.
<SpamapS > kim0: It w i ll be av aila b le ,  but like thethrea d was sayi n g, it wo n't b e quiteas automa t i c to get  it .
< kim 0>w o ul d users be ab l e  toqu ery non  of ficialrep osfor  al ldrupal fo rmulas?<k im 0>  p erh aps w e  shouldal low  u ser -rati n g andcomme ntin g,  a laandroid ma r k et
< ki m0 > if  us er  form ulas (no n offic ial) arenot sear ch ab le/disc overable.. th at  pretty mu ch  ki lls th e m  though<SpamapS> No they'll sh o w up in  se arche s..with a na mes pace t hat identi fies t hem c le arl y as "n o t  o ffi ci al"
<Spama p S > I  like  t he i dea of"contrib".. "These are  useful formu las  but n ot  pa r to f U bu n tu" < SpamapS> kim0:I actually  t h in k these fo r mul as  are th e kille r app of ense mble.. an d makingth e di s t inc tion isn't  going t o kill th e m orh ar m the m i n anywa y.It ju st sig n als  to u sers w ha t risk  is i nv olved.
< niemeyer> kim0: We're n ot enf orcin g,in the sa mew aywe don'tenfo rce what p eop leput i n P P As
<S pama p S
..
<hazmat> SpamapS,_definitely
<SpamapS> hazmat:_So that people can_get teh_11.10_version of_ensemble_on natty/maverick/lucid
<niemeyer> kim0:_In that case,_it won't be an_official formula.. we_can't_enforce how the user will handle security updates
<niemeyer> kim0: We can only offer the_mechanisms
<kim0>_but we're_already_enforcing,_we're saying if you dont_use apt-get you wont be_accepted in_official
<SpamapS> kim0: practically, drush upc is meant to_do_the same thing._But we don't want to take responsibility for that.
<kim0>_the formula author takes responsibility
<SpamapS> Hence_it not being_"official"
<kim0>_We_should only verify that_the update mechannism works
<SpamapS> Official means_"we take responsibility for it working_a certain way"
<SpamapS> We don't know their_security update process, we don't know_how long they'll support a_version.. also_what if they break compatiblity_with other software_in a_version that also_fixes security? We don't do that.
<SpamapS>_kim0: It will_be available, but like the thread_was_saying, it won't_be_quite_as automatic_to get it.
<kim0>_would_users be_able_to query non official repos for_all_drupal formulas?
<kim0> perhaps we should allow user-rating_and commenting, a la_android_market
<kim0> if user formulas_(non official) are not searchable/discoverable.._that pretty much kills them though
<SpamapS>_No they'll_show up_in searches.. with a namespace that identifies them clearly as "not_official"
<SpamapS> I like the idea of_"contrib".. "These are useful_formulas but_not_part of Ubuntu"
<SpamapS>_kim0:_I actually_think these formulas are the killer app_of ensemble.._and making the distinction isn't going_to kill them or_harm_them in any way. It just_signals to users what risk is_involved.
<niemeyer> kim0: We're not enforcing,_in_the_same way we don't enforce_what people put in PPAs
<SpamapS