On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:46:43 -0600 Robbie Williamson <rob...@canonical.com> wrote: >On 03/04/2009 09:28 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:24:10 -0600 Robbie Williamson <rob...@ubuntu.com> >> wrote: >>> On 03/04/2009 02:42 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: >>>> Scott Kitterman [2009-03-03 16:04 -0500]: >>>>> Could we have some discussion about cutting two weeks off of getting >> new >>>>> packages in? I'd like to understand why it was moved back and what >> problem >>>>> we are trying to solve. Was there some discussion already of adding an >>>>> earlier "NewPackageUploadDeadline"? >>>>> >>>>> I thought the freeze consolidation has been very good and I wouldn't >> want >>>>> us to casually spread things back out. >>>> +1. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureFreeze already has a defined and >>>> well-working process for new packages. >>> This was suggested by some of the platform leads. Some partners not >> familiar >>> with our release process assume that FeatureFreeze is the deadline by which they >>> can submit their code *for the first time*...that is, they have not made *any* >>> public drops to us or anyone else in the Ubuntu community until this point. The >>> FeatureDefinitionFreeze and NewPackageDeadline was created to be able to keep >>> these entities "honest", with regards to the schedule. Maybe we rename it >> to >>> PartnerNewPackageDeadline, to indicate the audience...would that be better? >>> >> I think it'd be better. If this is related to Canonical's efforts with >> their Partner repository then I think it probably doesn't belong on an >> Ubuntu schedule at all. >It's not just a partner repository issue, but I believe an OEM partners issue as >well. The problem is that we give them one date for an enablement code drop, and >then they see the FeatureFreeze on the public schedule and assume they have >until then. The goal was to have something in the public schedule so there's no >misunderstanding. Admittedly, the OEM should simply adhere to the agreed upon >dates and not the public schedule, however we've already had to drop 9.04 >support for some OEMs because of this misunderstanding...and this hurts us, >them, and the users of their hardware. >
I can see how that would be a problem, but I still view that as a Canonical issue and not an Ubuntu issue. I know the distinction is subtle, but I think important to preserve. My suggestion would be to publish a schedule on canonical.com with additional milestones related to Canonical's commercial efforts. Perhaps I make to much of this, so I'll step back and see what other's think. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
