Steve Beattie <[email protected]> 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. > In general, yes. In the particular case I'm worried about having time before final freeze to integrate a bugfix update from KDE so release and the related freeze milestones are the relevant ones. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
