Karmic Release Schedule

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:46:43 -0600 Robbie Williamson <robbie at canonical.com> 
wrote:
>On 03/04/2009 09:28 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:24:10 -0600 Robbie Williamson <robbie at ubuntu.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2009 02:42 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
>>>> Scott Kitterman [2009-03-03 16:04 -0500]:
>>>>> Could we have some discussion about cutting two weeks off of getting 
>> new 
>>>>> packages in?  I'd like to understand why it was moved back and what 
>> problem 
>>>>> we are trying to solve.  Was there some discussion already of adding 
an 
>>>>> earlier "NewPackageUploadDeadline"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the freeze consolidation has been very good and I wouldn't 
>> want 
>>>>> us to casually spread things back out.
>>>> +1. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureFreeze already has a defined and
>>>> well-working process for new packages.
>>> This was suggested by some of the platform leads. Some partners not 
>> familiar
>>> with our release process assume that FeatureFreeze is the deadline by 
which they
>>> can submit their code *for the first time*...that is, they have not 
made *any*
>>> public drops to us or anyone else in the Ubuntu community until this 
point.  The
>>> FeatureDefinitionFreeze and NewPackageDeadline was created to be able 
to keep
>>> these entities "honest", with regards to the schedule.  Maybe we rename 
it 
>> to
>>> PartnerNewPackageDeadline, to indicate the audience...would that be 
better?
>>>
>> I think it'd be better.  If this is related to Canonical's efforts with 
>> their Partner repository then I think it probably doesn't belong on an 
>> Ubuntu schedule at all.
>It's not just a partner repository issue, but I believe an OEM partners 
issue as
>well. The problem is that we give them one date for an enablement code 
drop, and
>then they see the FeatureFreeze on the public schedule and assume they have
>until then. The goal was to have something in the public schedule so 
there's no
>misunderstanding.  Admittedly, the OEM should simply adhere to the agreed 
upon
>dates and not the public schedule, however we've already had to drop 9.04
>support for some OEMs because of this misunderstanding...and this hurts us,
>them, and the users of their hardware.
>

I can see how that would be a problem, but I still view that as a Canonical 
issue and not an Ubuntu issue.  I know the distinction is subtle, but I 
think important to preserve.  My suggestion would be to publish a schedule 
on canonical.com with additional milestones related to Canonical's 
commercial efforts.

Perhaps I make to much of this, so I'll step back and see what other's 
think.

Scott K