String and feature freeze

Dan Mosedale dmose at
Thu Apr 22 20:56:56 UTC 2010

  On 4/22/10 1:48 PM, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
>  On 04/22/2010 12:44 PM, Kent James wrote:
>> It seems to me it would make more sense (that is spread out the load 
>> a little and also allow more bugs to land) if the feature freeze was 
>> not the same date as the string freeze, but a few days later.
> I would argue the opposite.  String freeze after non-blocker freeze.  
> Then blockers can continue to land and we declare string freeze only 
> once all the blockers have landed so we can avoid all this late-l10n 
> stuff, but we avoid dangerous, rushed churn involving non-blockers.
To be honest, I was actually surprised that sipaq suggested we use 
late-l10n the way we've been using it this week.  My own inclination 
would have been to simply declare that we had missed Tuesday as the 
string freeze date and then to slip the string freeze date, which would 
not have required late-l10n stuff.

Sipaq, what are your thoughts?


More information about the tb-planning mailing list