release cadence for Q and R

Steve Beattie sbeattie at
Wed Jun 15 22:58:54 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:48:58PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> Very valuable perspective, thanks. To other upstreams, do you have
> similar or opposite needs?

Perhaps this is just me being naive, but with upstreams, shouldn't we
be emphasizing the Feature Freeze date rather than the actual Release
date? That's the merge window deadline they should be targeting, and
where the Ubuntu cadence should be most relevant. This is at least how
the upstream I do release management for targets the Ubuntu releases.

Going back through the previous calendars, it seems that we've had
Feature Freeze be 9 weeks before release on non-LTS releases and 10
weeks prior on LTS releases (until you go back to Feisty where it
starts to deviate).

I also note that looking at the current draft Q schedule and R
schedules, Feature Freeze is tentatively marked in at 11 weeks and
10 weeks prior to the respective releases. So even if the Q and R
release cycles were moved to straight 26 week cycles, unless the
Feature Freeze dates are also aligned, upstreams won't really have
a 26 week cadence to target for development.

Steve Beattie
<sbeattie at>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list