Re: 2.15.x schedule first pass
- From: "Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>
- To: "John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp redhat com>
- Cc: release-team gnome org
- Subject: Re: 2.15.x schedule first pass
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:03:46 -0700
On 3/13/06, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 14:07 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > - Why four weeks between 2.15.3 and 2.15.4? (I know we did 3.5 weeks
> > or so for 2.11 but that was due to relocation of the gnome servers; we
> > originally had planned for just 3 weeks)
> The timing of GUADEC means if we have a release in that time it would
> have to happen during GUADEC which is a time we would want most of our
> developers to be hacking, having fun and talking about more important
> things (at least when we have them face to face) than a point release.
> Notice that GUADEC is a week long this year.
Not quite; the natural time (according to the past few releases) would
be July 3rd (3 weeks after 2.15.3, instead of 2 or 4)...
> We could have a release on July 3rd when theoretical everyone would be
> back to their usual grind (though some will have taken the time after
> GUADEC to travel more). The problem with this is we slip everything
> down an extra week.
It doesn't slip everything by a week; July 3rd would be the normal
schedule. Note that you've shortened the 2.16 schedule by a week by
removing what normally would be the two week 2.15.5 release and then
adding one week to 2.15.4 release.
> Not a big deal but does the extra release actually
> help or just add more of burden? I suspect a lot of hacking is going to
> go on a GUADEC this year. Do we do a release directly after or do we
> let everyone go home, look over their work and polish it a bit and then
> do a release a week later?
Yeah, that makes sense. I can see how this might cause problems.
Perhaps someone can come up with suggestions that will handle that
problem as well as the potential problems/annoyances I see with the
current proposal? The potential problems I see are:
1) If the 2.16 schedule is shortened by a week as you propose then we
run into the feature-freeze-too-soon-after-Christmas problem during
2.18 again. I think we should add the extra week back in somewhere.
2) To me at least, it seemed a little odd to have
API/ABI/Feature/Module and UI freeze all lumped together. It already
seemed like we had too many freezes at once. Maybe I'm just odd,
3) Due to a late GUADEC and a shortened schedule, we're giving people
even less time to implement any cool ideas that come out of the
meeting. This is mostly inevitable, but 4 vs 3 weeks before feature
freeze might be enough of a difference that we want to consider.
Granted, I mostly mentioned #2 and #3 because I think it makes the
case for #1 stronger, which is the point I'm most interested in
(because then scheduling becomes easier for both us and others with
just 6 month shifts occurring in most cases after that). But, #2 and
#3 might be important to others, so it can't hurt to bring them up.
] [Thread Prev