Re: 3.35/3.36 schedule vs moving Tarballs Due to Fridays
On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 10:39 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > OK, I've pushed changes to the releng repo. > https://wiki.gnome.org/MichaelCatanzaro/ScheduleTest > > I haven't tested the ical creation. Andre, can you take over from > here? Sure. ical works. Thanks so much for all your work and thoughts! Only things that were left for me were updating https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointThirtyfive and pushing the ical in https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/static-web/commit/9d573d180b02f82df1e311c675cb077b2e1fbcd8 Probably also need to review and check https://wiki.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/Freezes if I or someone find time. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net https://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: 3.35/3.36 schedule vs moving Tarballs Due to Fridays
OK, I've pushed changes to the releng repo. Here is the wiki page result: https://wiki.gnome.org/MichaelCatanzaro/ScheduleTest I haven't tested the ical creation. Andre, can you take over from here? ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: 3.35/3.36 schedule vs moving Tarballs Due to Fridays
I've been experimenting here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/releng/commit/b8cc54884dfd28d5f18637e2f801e3055a8641ec And here: https://wiki.gnome.org/MichaelCatanzaro/ScheduleTest Changes: * One fewer week between newstable .0 and the .1, to help Fedora and potentially Ubuntu take the .1 release * Unstable .4 and .91 releases are eliminated to reduce tarball fatigue * Stable .2 removed too; maintainers should do more stable releases whenever needed; I'm already having second thoughts about this, should maybe put it back? * Actual release dates are removed to help maintainers focus on the tarball deadlines (and because I'm tired of maintainers releasing on Wednesday two days after the tarball deadline) TODO: * Add more stable releases to the schedule? I originally had tarball deadlines on here for 3.34.2, 3.34.3, 3.34.4, and 3.34.5. But we don't actually want maintainers to care about these dates, we just want to do runtime respins if they have tarballs for us, so I removed them. * Suggestions? ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: 3.35/3.36 schedule vs moving Tarballs Due to Fridays
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:02 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: * 12 months of stable releases; this means the schedule will be 18 months total rather than 6 BTW this was the one remaining topic I wanted to discuss before proposing a new schedule. We agreed at GUADEC on 12 months of stable releases. There are two counterproposals, 13 months or 9 months: * 13 months (Fedora-style) gives an extra month of support period so that it's possible to skip a runtime without going outside a support period, if you plan ahead to upgrade during the 13th month. This means we'd support four runtimes at once during the 13th month: three stable runtimes and the unstable runtime. I think it's simpler to plan for 12 months of releases and just not mark the runtime as deprecated until a month after the last release, that way we only ever have to support three at once. * 9 months (Ubuntu-style) has a three-month upgrade window, long enough to provide a comfortable upgrade window but short enough that everyone knows to look elsewhere for LTS (e.g. to freedesktop-sdk, or a hypothetical future RHEL runtime). With this support period, we'd half the time have three runtimes to support (two stable runtimes and the unstable runtime, during the first three months after a new release), and the other half of the time only two runtimes (one stable runtime and the unstable runtime, during the three months before the next release). We could still do an LTS runtime on a separate schedule if we ever decide to do so (e.g. for GNOME 3.36). An opinions? My vote is 9 months, because I fear we underestimate the effort involved in maintaining three different runtimes at once. But I will propose a schedule for 12 unless I hear opinions to the contrary, because 12 is what we have already agreed on. Michael ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: 3.35/3.36 schedule vs moving Tarballs Due to Fridays
In the end, we agreed to use Saturday for the tarball deadlines. There are other changes to the schedule: * No more overall release date, except for the stable .0 release. We'll have only tarball deadlines on the schedule and the overall release will come when it arrives. * New translator deadline for the .0 release * 12 months of stable releases; this means the schedule will be 18 months total rather than 6 * Also need to move tarball deadline announcements a bit earlier I'll look into these scripts soon. ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
Re: 3.35/3.36 schedule vs moving Tarballs Due to Fridays
You piqued my curiousity, so I dug around. I think I found the right spot to change it. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/releng/merge_requests/7 On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:06 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: I've created an initial 3.35/3.36 release schedule in https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/releng/commit/9141d8b0c4edba236e8a779b9216805b1caff36b but given that we want to move the Tarballs Due from Mon to Fri in https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-August/msg00029.html , the scripts creating the ical and wiki markup still list Monday. Could someone who's better in Python take a look and change the relevant code to go for Fri instead of Mon? Should be somewhere in https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/releng/blob/master/tools/schedule/libschedule.py https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/releng/blob/master/tools/schedule/ical.py https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/releng/blob/master/tools/schedule/wiki.py Thanks in advance, andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net https://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions. ___ release-team@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
