On 03/04/2009 09:59 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > 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. Heh, we actually have such a calender with internal milestones, etc. However, this particular milestone is something we need public to avoid the situation I described previously.
> > Perhaps I make to much of this, so I'll step back and see what other's > think. Eh..no worries. I did make this change: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PartnerUploadDeadline -Robbie > > 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
