Release Team Members: input requested...

Martin Pitt martin.pitt at
Tue Apr 3 07:46:16 UTC 2012

Kate Stewart [2012-04-02 16:54 -0500]:
> 4/12 - Final Freeze[1] - ALL fixes should go into -proposed,  and 
>       only copied into -release after review meeting.

This seems overly harsh to me. This is 14 days before the release, and
we certainly want to land more bug fixes in that period. We made good
experiences with allowing bug fixes into the release even relatively
late (with careful review, etc.) instead of piling up many dozen 0-day
SRUs. Requiring meetings for any fix isn't going to help much, IMHO:
In a meeting we cannot judge well about the impact on a patch, testing
and working with the developer who uploaded this seem a lot more
appropriate for this. Also, forcing meetings for all of this is just
going to slow down everyone and distract from real work.

IMHO we should continue the normal process (release team member
reviews changes in the queue and selectively accepts) until 4/19
(candidate window start).

>       All packages should be reviewed and built by 2300 GMT in
>       -release, so they can be included in the nightly builds.

Note that we cannot make this happen for packages which just take long
to build (Qt, LibreOffice, eglibc, etc.).

> 4/19 - CandidateWindowStarts[6] - from this point forward, any of
>       images produced could be the final one.  CRON job is disabled. 
>       The full set of QA results needs to be gathered on these 
>       images. Continue with daily release team meetings to agree 
>       if any additional fixes in -proposed MUST be included,  and 
>       let QA teams know explicitly if another round of full manual
>       testing is going to be needed. 

I like this, especially the subtle, but important "could" -- i. e. we
require release quality for all builds from then on, but keep the
possibility open to pick up more fixes.



Martin Pitt                        |
Ubuntu Developer (  | Debian Developer  (

More information about the Ubuntu-release mailing list