Release management thoughts for Dapper Drake

[Martin Pitt]

Hi!

Sivan Green [2005-10-18  1:10 +0200]:
> On 09:52, Mon 17 Oct 05, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > From my experience, a lot of effort that was spent for Breezy went in
> > (1) the gcc transition, which should not be an issue for Dapper, and
> > (2) implementing a really high number of specifications. So I feel
> > that if we want to get something more stable than Breezy in Dapper, we
> > should completely avoid implementing specs and rather concentrate our
> > full development capacity on bug fixing. If we also narrow down the
> > window for autosyncs and new upstream versions, we have much more time
> > for bug fixing than we had for Breezy.
> 
> Not devoting resources for implementing new goals and
> features at all sounds to me a bit harsh.

Well, true, it would be pretty boring, so we would quickly lose all
the fun. :-)

> Maybe a good tradeoff could be to do define irreversible freeze
> points for the desktop crack that have been known to cause breakage
> and drain resources.  This would allow us to concentrate on
> stabilization rather then cope with newest GNOME tarballs as we
> attempt to make them in for release.

That doesn't work, since we can't change upstream Gnome's release
plan. We can only adopt our own, if we need to. However, Seb does an
amazing job with keeping up to beta releases, so at least we will see
breakage as early as possible.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt              http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntulinux.org
Debian Developer        http://www.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20051018/645f1866/attachment.pgp