4:04 p.m.
** Resent, apparently my addy for rel-eng was wrong. **
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:00 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Paul W. Frields (stickster(a)gmail.com) said:
> Here are some ideas to consider (please add your concerns, and pose a
> solutions to address them):
>
> * Move all dates in the current F11 schedule to the right by two weeks
> (i.e. absorb two weeks of slip). Similarly absorb remaining two weeks
> of slip into the F12 schedule. Further slip will move both F11 and F12
> schedules to the right accordingly.
Ooof. I'd hate to move F12 at this point. It sounds early to make
that call yet. But yeah, we should probably move F11.
Yeah, just to be clear, if we don't slip beyond November 25 for GA, we
shouldn't have to disturb the F12 schedule at all (at least not
pre-emptively).
> * Rigorously enforce freezing in a way that maximizes our
chances of
> turning out test releases on time.
... How? This has never worked so far, so I think we need some new
ideas.
Probably, and they need to come from people smarter and more experienced
than me. We might want to involve James Laska in this thread as well.
By the way, I don't know who-all's here on the rel-eng alias, but I am
assuming that this is an open-sub list -- I'm sure I've visited the
archives before so I know they're open. If I'm wrong, someone tell me
so we can get this into the right open venue please.
> * Allow for the feature process for release N+1 to commence
following
> the N Beta release. I can't think of a good reason *not* to do this,
> since it's what any developer expects to do anyway with a feature that's
> both desirable and not ready for release N by the feature freeze point.
Sounds reasonable.
--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
6:30 p.m.
New subject: Schedule figures
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Probably, and they need to come from people smarter and more
experienced
than me. We might want to involve James Laska in this thread as well.
By the way, I don't know who-all's here on the rel-eng alias, but I am
assuming that this is an open-sub list -- I'm sure I've visited the
archives before so I know they're open. If I'm wrong, someone tell me
so we can get this into the right open venue please.
This is the correct open venue, though admittedly one that probably
not many people know about :). As far as the problem at hand, freezes
are meant to be just that IMO, however, events warrant getting things
in after the freeze nearly all the time, for example things not
installing right :)
I firmly advocate a strict freeze policy, basically something like "we
only accept items after the freeze if the default installation lights
itself on fire, or you're unable to do an installation of various
package sets via various methods", with the various methods becoming
more and more towards the END of the release process.
For Beta/Feature freeze, the situation becomes a little tougher.
According to the feature policy, any features for the current release
have to be in a testable state by Beta. This leads to people
requesting feature-related tagging. I'm pretty sure that I'm being
very unreasonable here, but a side of me says "if you don't have your
feature in a testable state by Beta *freeze* - we drop the feature".
No more tagging just to ensure that features meet the policy (again,
I'm very sure that this is an unreasonable position to take - but it
does represent the ideal world).
This sounds counter-intuitive, I know - but we expect less to work
towards the beginning. Towards the end, there are more stringent
requirements that we are ready for the world. Admittedly, in a perfect
world, everything would be tested for every milestone release that we
have, however, we have a distinct lack of QA resources in Fedora -
Will is just one person, and while he does have help from others, the
time that most of them (including myself) spend is at the moment that
we have time available, not necessarily at the time of need :/
4:47 p.m.
New subject: Schedule figures
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:04 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Yeah, just to be clear, if we don't slip beyond November 25 for
GA, we
shouldn't have to disturb the F12 schedule at all (at least not
pre-emptively).
I agree we need to make f11 have a full schedule. It's important to
Fedora, and even more important to one major Fedora downstream. The F12
schedule we could probably squish a bit, especially if we ask people to
focus on polish rather than features for that release. Not sure how
well that would go over, but we could try at least.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
7:39 p.m.
New subject: Schedule figures
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:47:38PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:04 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Yeah, just to be clear, if we don't slip beyond November 25 for GA, we
> shouldn't have to disturb the F12 schedule at all (at least not
> pre-emptively).
I agree we need to make f11 have a full schedule. It's important to
Fedora, and even more important to one major Fedora downstream. The F12
schedule we could probably squish a bit, especially if we ask people to
focus on polish rather than features for that release. Not sure how
well that would go over, but we could try at least.
After the Beta we should try to make this a wider discussion.
Developers will want to know up front whether they're going to be
squished for time to get things done for F11.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
8:30 p.m.
New subject: Schedule figures
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 20:39 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
After the Beta we should try to make this a wider discussion.
Developers will want to know up front whether they're going to be
squished for time to get things done for F11.
Agreed, particularly because we should be allowing early-branching in
the next couple days. (branching for F-11 changes that is.)
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
10:29 a.m.
New subject: Schedule figures
Jesse Keating said the following on 09/29/2008 02:47 PM Pacific Time:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:04 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Yeah, just to be clear, if we don't slip beyond November 25 for GA, we
> shouldn't have to disturb the F12 schedule at all (at least not
> pre-emptively).
I agree we need to make f11 have a full schedule. It's important to
Fedora, and even more important to one major Fedora downstream. The F12
schedule we could probably squish a bit, especially if we ask people to
focus on polish rather than features for that release. Not sure how
well that would go over, but we could try at least.
I'll work on a few scenarios... might not get to until next week.
John
5713
days inactive
5720
days old
rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jesse Keating -
John Poelstra -
Jon Stanley -
Paul W. Frields