Micah Gersten <mic...@ubunt.com> wrote:
>On 06/15/2011 05:58 PM, Steve Beattie wrote: >> 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. >> >Indeed, but something to remember is that certain upstreams (KDE and >GNOME amongst others), have a microrelease exception which allows the >point releases to be included. These were granted since no new >features >are included in point releases. I believe this is the point Scott K >was >raising in that we get an extra round of bug fixes if we do a 26/26 >split on the fall release. Yes. Exactly. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
