Jaunty just froze a little bit more, with the last few normal uploads being done. From here on in it's mainly about getting the CDs perfect for release, which will hopefully go smoothly.

Over the last few days there have been a number of people working on Universe to get it in to the best shape we could in the remaining time. We did a pretty good job of it too, towards the end we were scavenging around for any more fixes that were ready to upload. As always, with more people we could have done more, but it seemed to be a very smooth landing this time.

The sponsorship queue is virtually all things that were not appropriate for Jaunty, with just a couple of desirable fixes not making the cut (we'll work to have those in jaunty-updates ASAP). In addition to that, NBS was clear, meaning that there were no outstanding library transitions or similar, and there are very few uninstallables. Obviously we would want all of these numbers to be zero, but you can't have that with a time-based release schedule. Unfortunately the FTBFS list is rather long (mainly due to toolchain changes), but it's generally infrequently updated packages on there, which will tend to be of less interest.

The MOTUs also did a fantastic job of the python 2.6 transition, which was a huge job, and a compressed timeframe to do it in. Unfortunately there are going to be some issues with the change in the default python for some time to come, but given the state of python a couple of months ago this is a great acheivement.

Also, I'll make special mention of the Mono 2.0 transition. Co-ordinated by Jo Shields, and thanks to a lot of people on both the Debian and Ubuntu sides, this was completed with very little fuss. It was a great example of co-ordinating work on a large number of packages, and of collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu. I also think that it showed some of the advantages of the Ubuntu method of development over the Debian one, but the shared work trumps that.

If you are reading this thinking "You might think you did a good job, but what about this bug that I provided a patch for 3 months ago, why didn't you fix that?" then all I can really do is point you to the sponsorship process. Yes, it sucks that not knowing about this cost you, but reviewing every bug with an attachment tagged "patch" is currently a little out of our reach. I'm always looking for ways to improve this, and I hope one day we can do that, but in the meantime using the sponsorship process will help get your patch included.