[Bug 64488] Re: UVFe ( main ) for konversation 1.0 to 1.0.1

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:30:38PM -0000, Eike Hein wrote:
> Konversation 0.19 and 1.0 releases, which were successfully scheduled
> and executed to happen in time for Kubuntu Breezy and Dapper,
> respectively (see http://konversation.kde.org/wiki/Release_Schedule for
> details), in conference with Kubuntu's Jonathan Riddell and Brandon
> Holtsclaw. We are very happy both goals were met. We consider
> Kubuntu/Ubuntu one of the premier distributions carrying our software.

I am very pleased to see this level of coordination, and to hear that it was
successfully executed for 1.0.  However, 1.0.1 seems to diverge from it by
adding new features which require testing and may require further bug fixes.
It is a critical feature of our release process that after a certain point,
we monotonically decrease the number of bugs by ceasing to add new code and
fixing bugs in the code we have.

> Konversation 1.0.1 is a maintenance release for Konversation 1.0, which
> is limited to refinements and bugfixes. Where new functionality was
> introduced, such as in the media script or the new config file option
> allowing to successfully use the Konversation OSD in Gnome and XFce,
> they have no impact on i18n. The "Edit Network" dialog refinement
> involves a redistribution of interface elements, and no string
> additions. One of our goals for the 1.0.1 maintenance release was to be
> mindful of changes that would prevent distributions - including Kubuntu
> - from replacing 1.0 with 1.0.1, i.e. not do such changes. Considering
> we explicitly highlight i18n improvements in the changelog, we obviously
> care about the issue. As a result, Konversation is one of the
> applications with the best translation coverage in the KDE Extragear
> module, given the amount of strings.

Thank you for the additional detail.  However, our current state of freeze
restricts much more than just string changes, and based on the information I
have available, several of the changes in 1.0.1 do not seem to meet the
current freeze criteria.  Therefore, I am curious what criteria you used
when determining what would prevent distributions (including Kubuntu) from
updating to 1.0.1, given that Kubuntu is now in beta and the release
candidate freeze begins tomorrow.  Did you receive guidance from Jonathan
and Brandon?

> Again, the timing for this maintenance release was worked out in
> conference with Kubuntu. We were told that the UFVe was a formality of
> the process and the word "guaranteed" was used.

I apologize on behalf of whomever provided that misinformation; this is not
the case at all.  We are in the final stages of preparing the release, and
we absolutely do not accept new upstream releases without due consideration.
We begin to prepare CD images for the release candidate very soon, and to
find a regression in konversation at that point would cause the CD image
testing process to be aborted while we fix the problem and build a
completely new set of images, a process which can take half a day or more.

I've tried to explain in TimeBasedReleases why we have deadlines well in
advance of the final release date.  Let's say that you released a 1.0.2 on
October 25th: even though Kubuntu isn't officially released until the 26th,
the ISOs will have already been through a long testing cycle which would
need to be repeated if new ones are built.

> The bottom line is this: I understand and respect that Ubuntu is wary of
> putting in a new version of an application into the tree two weeks
> before a release. It's because you care about stability and the
> experience your users are going to have. So do we. And this release was
> executed with that very much on mind.

I'm glad that we agree on the importance of stability at this stage.
However, bear in mind that if you discover a problem with 1.0.1, you solve
it quickly and easily by testing and releasing a 1.0.2 tarball.  Releasing a
distribution like Kubuntu, however, is a long and complex process requiring
verification testing of several ISOs across several platforms, so our
situation is very different.

I hope that I've adequately explained the need to be conservative in making
changes to the distribution at such a late hour.

If someone will provide a _complete_ exception request according to the
process document I linked earlier, I will give it a second look and review
the code changes with you.  This is a time-consuming process and I cannot
make any guarantees, except that it can be avoided in the future by
following the release guidelines.

-- 
 - mdz

-- 
UVFe ( main ) for konversation 1.0 to 1.0.1
https://launchpad.net/bugs/64488