[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: release notes for wheezy

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 04:39:05PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 00:07:58 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:16:08PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > but those two packages are not present in lenny. Maybe postpone this 
> > > issue for wheezey?
> > 
> > +1
> > I vote for this. 
> > 
> While we're at this... At what point should we branch the release notes
> for squeeze?  Around the wheezy freeze, or earlier?

>From lenny time-line: http://www.debian.org/News/2009 ...

2009-02-14  Lenny released       start
2009-06-27  Lenny updated        +4 mo.
2009-06-30  Squeeze release goal +4 mo. **
2009-09-05  Lenny updated        +6 mo.
2010-01-30  Lenny updated       +11 mo.
2010-06-26  Lenny updated       +16 mo.
2010-08-06  Squeeze frozen      +18 mo. **
2010-09-04  Lenny updated       +19 mo.
2010-11-27  Lenny updated       +21 mo.
2011-01-24  Lenny updated       +23 mo.
2011-02-06  Squeeze released    +24 mo. ** start
2011-03-19  Squeeze updated                +1 mo.

Looking back... we really did 2 year release cycle...wow! 

As for documentation activity time-line....

I think we should focus on updating/polishing squeeze release note for
about 4 - 6 months from the release date.  So I expect to see only one
main trunk only. (This is usually the first real update time-line
although we had a quick fix release earlier for squeeze.)

Then we should continue on updating/polishing so from 6th month until
18th month.  But, in this period, we should discuss and put some effort
to the wheezy release note.  So I see we have 2 branches and effort for
both.  I envision work in this period for wheezy is more about general
structure of release note.  (I expect to have more table/list of
packages for specific types of issues so adding at the last moment will
be easier.)

After frozen around 18th month time-line, we should switch main activity
to wheezy.  There I expect to address specifics.


Reply to: