[Fwd: Re: Karmic Release Schedule]

Robbie Williamson robbie at ubuntu.com
Wed Mar 4 15:52:35 GMT 2009

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.



More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list