On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Alexandros Frantzis <alexandros.frant...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I completely missed the Linaro release process session during LDS, but > here are my thoughts on the Linaro development cycle. > > Currently, the Linaro cycle lags behind the Ubuntu cycle by one month. > This is done so that the Linaro releases are based on a stable system. > > Unfortunately, this scheme causes some disruption for me (and I suspect for > other engineers, too). The problem is that while the current Linaro cycle is > still ongoing, we need to start planning for next-cycle/LDS, attend LDS and > after that investigate some more and create the specifications. This is hard > and time consuming work and I am sure not many people (including me) can > continue to work effectively on their remaining work items while drafting > specifications or attending LDS. The problem is exacerbated further because > the > end of cycle is usually a very strenuous period for engineers. > > So my questions/suggestions are: > > 1. Do other engineers feel this way?
At the moment I think the 1 month delay after the Ubuntu releases is less an optimal. I think a shorter time period between the ubuntu release and the linaro release would work much better. A week would be my suggestion. > 2. From people's experience, has the one-month-after-ubuntu schedule provided > concrete advantages? Could we get away with less (e.g. one week)? > > 3. If we don't change anything we should at least make this situation very > clear > to engineers/managers, so that they can plan accordingly: > ~5 months of normal work, starting two weeks after LDS and ending one week > before the next LDS. Keep the rest for planning/LDS and spec-ing, plus some > light work. With the direction to go to monthly releases, I am a bit concerned how that will fit into the larger upstream ubuntu 6 month release cycle. The first few months of the cycle where software tends to be under more rapid development therefore lower quality seems unwise to use as the only base for a release. Compilers, kernels, tools, work group output I can very easily see it released on a month basis as appropriate for the code in question. Just like last cycle, it seems easy to define the work item and the release schedule / mechanism in the blueprint. For the linaro reference images, I'm not sure that going to a monthly release makes much sense unless we had both a stable (which would currently be natty) and development (now oneiric) based release. Then WGs could decide where their output should go. Thanks for starting this discussion Alexandros. Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
