Here is the outcome of the meeting today (previously announced on the list. Naturally if there is disagreement in what was proposed it can be discussed and considered for adjustment:
o we made sure there were enough blocker bug review meetings ahead of each freeze and test release candidate creation
o we will not create Release Candidates if there are bugs remaining on the the blocker list
o if we cannot create the Release Candidates because the blocker list is not clear we will move to slip the release a week
o at the final blocker review on Monday, 2009-10-26 if the blocker list is clear we will move forward with the release–regardless of what might be found after the fact because of the inability to unwind PR activities that have been set in motion.
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
Thanks again to everyone for their time!
John
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:09:19PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Here is the outcome of the meeting today (previously announced on the list. Naturally if there is disagreement in what was proposed it can be discussed and considered for adjustment:
o we made sure there were enough blocker bug review meetings ahead of each freeze and test release candidate creation
o we will not create Release Candidates if there are bugs remaining on the the blocker list
o if we cannot create the Release Candidates because the blocker list is not clear we will move to slip the release a week
o at the final blocker review on Monday, 2009-10-26 if the blocker list is clear we will move forward with the release–regardless of what might be found after the fact because of the inability to unwind PR activities that have been set in motion.
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
Thanks again to everyone for their time!
I think the PR activities here are not quite as rigid as the last bullet indicates. We need to give better advance notice than a few days, but at the same time, we also have the ability to apply the brakes on, say, the Thursday or Friday before release. Of course, everyone would rather not have to do that, but the option is there if needed. The goal of having more certainty and accuracy in hitting our release date is a noble one but PR shouldn't interfere with sanity.
Hi John,
(Cc-ing fedora-devel-list, surprised to see the schedule hasn't been posted there)
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:09 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
In the F-11 schedule, we had 85 days between Feature Freeze and GA. And then GA slipped by two weeks.
In the F-12 schedule, we now have 99 days between Feature Freeze and GA.
This seriously cuts into development time, and we already have a shorter releases cycle.
Why is that?
Thanks, Mark.
Mark McLoughlin (markmc@redhat.com) said:
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
In the F-11 schedule, we had 85 days between Feature Freeze and GA. And then GA slipped by two weeks.
In the F-12 schedule, we now have 99 days between Feature Freeze and GA.
This seriously cuts into development time, and we already have a shorter releases cycle.
Why is that?
At least one week of this (that I recall) is to have the feature freeze be a week before the 'code freeze' for the milestone; the idea is that to avoid the 'all features land at once, and we have to spend a week cleaning them up' problem.
Bill
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 10:13 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Mark McLoughlin (markmc@redhat.com) said:
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
In the F-11 schedule, we had 85 days between Feature Freeze and GA. And then GA slipped by two weeks.
In the F-12 schedule, we now have 99 days between Feature Freeze and GA.
This seriously cuts into development time, and we already have a shorter releases cycle.
Why is that?
At least one week of this (that I recall) is to have the feature freeze be a week before the 'code freeze' for the milestone; the idea is that to avoid the 'all features land at once, and we have to spend a week cleaning them up' problem.
Had that last time too:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/Schedule
2009-03-03 Feature Freeze 2009-03-10 Beta Freeze
Cheers, Mark.
Mark McLoughlin said the following on 07/24/2009 05:55 AM Pacific Time:
Hi John,
(Cc-ing fedora-devel-list, surprised to see the schedule hasn't been posted there)
It was approved by FESCo in May https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/143 and should have appeared on fedora-devel as part of the meeting recap.
The schedules below are detailed schedules for a specific team. There were no changes to the major milestones originally approved: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/12/Schedule
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:09 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
In the F-11 schedule, we had 85 days between Feature Freeze and GA. And then GA slipped by two weeks. In the F-12 schedule, we now have 99 days between Feature Freeze and GA.
For Fedora 12 An extra week was added to accommodate Linux plumbers conference, etc...https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1271
In addition there are four weeks in the Fedora 12 schedule for Alpha (previously known as Beta) versus the three weeks in Fedora 11--this was an oversight in the setting of the Fedora 11 schedule which did not allow for three weekly snapshots.
This seriously cuts into development time, and we already have a shorter releases cycle.
This is one of the reasons it was discussed almost a month or more before the GA of Fedora 11.
Why is that?
To get back on the regular "Halloween/May Day" release schedule. The original alpha (as we used to know it) was dropped by Releng in an effort to add more development time back... this was discussed on fedora-devel.
John
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:59 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Mark McLoughlin said the following on 07/24/2009 05:55 AM Pacific Time:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:09 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
In the F-11 schedule, we had 85 days between Feature Freeze and GA. And then GA slipped by two weeks. In the F-12 schedule, we now have 99 days between Feature Freeze and GA.
For Fedora 12 An extra week was added to accommodate Linux plumbers conference, etc...https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1271
In addition there are four weeks in the Fedora 12 schedule for Alpha (previously known as Beta) versus the three weeks in Fedora 11--this was an oversight in the setting of the Fedora 11 schedule which did not allow for three weekly snapshots.
Okay, the extra two weeks are to allow for (rel-eng?) people being missing during plumbers and to allow for a third snapshot between alpha and beta.
That makes sense on the face of it, but the end result for developers is a release cycle split into a 49 day development period followed by a 99 day stablization period. That's quite conservative for a bleeding edge distro.
Constructive suggestion for the next cycle - we should go back to a shorter gap between Feature Freeze and GA.
Cheers, Mark.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 08:40:04 +0100, Mark McLoughlin markmc@redhat.com wrote:
Constructive suggestion for the next cycle - we should go back to a shorter gap between Feature Freeze and GA.
Isn't development for the N+2 release supposed to start at the branch point and not GA of N+1? I think that is likely to happen at alpha (formerly known as beta) this time around.
-
Bill Nottingham -
Bruno Wolff III -
John Poelstra -
Mark McLoughlin -
Paul W. Frields