Releasing Alphas and Betas without "freezing"

[Rick Spencer]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michael Casadevall
<mcasadevall at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/20/2012 11:14 PM, Jono Bacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Scott Kitterman
> <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 09:13:17 PM Jono Bacon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Scott Kitterman
> <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> For our current Ubuntu ISOs. Flavors currently are
>>>>>> coordinating
> their
>>>>>> own testing efforts. They could either latch into the two
>>>>>> week cadence, or use their own cadence if desired.
>>>>>
>
> All flavors as it stands right now are actually coordinated to a
> common testing and QA cycle based around milestones, as set forth by
> the release manager and the manifest. At each milestone, all images,
> regardless of backing are tested. If they fail they're removed from
> the manifest, and are excluded from the release.
>
>>>>> I find it somewhat unfortunate that the "community" testing
>>>>> efforts exclude the community sponsored flavors in the Ubuntu
>>>>> project.  I
> would
>>>>> have hoped that the community team was not just about
>>>>> Canonical's products.
>>>>
>>>> This shouldn't be a particularly big surprise; Canonical
>>>> supports our flavors with infrastructure, but we primarily
>>>> focus our engineering and community team staff members on
>>>> Ubuntu.
>
> No one is objecting to additional QA efforts dedicated to Canonical
> images. That being said, I've yet to see a stated reason on why this
> additional QA drive requires changing the milestone process. As Scott
> clearly points out what is being proposed will change the
> QA/milestone/release process will cause a fair bit of large grief for
> all flavors.
Nothing is being proposed by Jono other than saying they will strive
to increase the testing cadence for Ubuntu, which as you state is not
related to alphas and betas.

Cheers, Rick