Builds and release process ( was Re: Update.1 schedule and code freeze...)

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Dec 15, 2007 7:35 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <mpgritti at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 11:01 PM, Jim Gettys <jg at laptop.org> wrote:
> > Declaring code freeze for Update.1 today would not see a rational
> > resolution of these issue.  As promised, this is a release that is
> > driven by completion of content, rather than driven by necessity of
> > hardware schedules.
>
> On the Sugar side, the main reason of the delay is that dealing with
> the various release process steps has been a lot more painful then it
> needs to be. We wasted a *lot* of time there.

My personal feeling is that we created update.1 too soon.  IMO
development should have been occurring in the joyride builds up until
code freeze (yesterday, or a week from yesterday).  There's no reason
to fork update.1 just for string freezes; translation can still occur
in the joyride branch.  Code freeze is the point at which we should
fork the builds.  I approve of delaying code freeze slightly in the
interest of making the freeze firmer when it occurs.

As you all know, the main problem with developing in the joyride
builds have been ensuring its continued stability and usability for
developers; Michael, I, and others have (as time has permitted!) been
working on integrated automated testing to help address that issue --
joyride builds will not be released for general use unless they pass
automated testing.  I've put that work on hold while I try to finish
up my update.1 feature set, but I hope to get back to it after code
freeze.
 --scott

-- 
                         ( http://cscott.net/ )