Karmic Release Schedule

[Robbie Williamson]

On 03/04/2009 09:59 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.
Heh, we actually have such a calender with internal milestones, etc.  However,
this particular milestone is something we need public to avoid the situation I
described previously.

> 
> Perhaps I make to much of this, so I'll step back and see what other's 
> think.
Eh..no worries.  I did make this change:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PartnerUploadDeadline

-Robbie
> 
> Scott K
>