Karmic Release Schedule
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Wed Mar 4 15:59:46 UTC 2009
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:46:43 -0600 Robbie Williamson <robbie at canonical.com>
>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>
>>> 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
>>>>> packages in? I'd like to understand why it was moved back and what
>>>>> we are trying to solve. Was there some discussion already of adding
>>>>> earlier "NewPackageUploadDeadline"?
>>>>> I thought the freeze consolidation has been very good and I wouldn't
>>>>> 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
>>> with our release process assume that FeatureFreeze is the deadline by
>>> can submit their code *for the first time*...that is, they have not
>>> public drops to us or anyone else in the Ubuntu community until this
>>> FeatureDefinitionFreeze and NewPackageDeadline was created to be able
>>> these entities "honest", with regards to the schedule. Maybe we rename
>>> PartnerNewPackageDeadline, to indicate the audience...would that be
>> 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
>well. The problem is that we give them one date for an enablement code
>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
>misunderstanding. Admittedly, the OEM should simply adhere to the agreed
>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
Perhaps I make to much of this, so I'll step back and see what other's
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss