String and feature freeze
dmose at mozilla.org
Thu Apr 22 23:14:34 UTC 2010
On 4/22/10 3:16 PM, Mark Banner wrote:
> On 22/04/2010 21:56, Dan Mosedale wrote:
>> 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.
> This may have been partially my fault. I was understanding that our
> estimations were that we could land the rest of the string blockers on
> Wednesday and that looked tight to achieve that, but reasonably
I would actually say that there's no blame to be apportioned at all.
We did what we thought was right here, and it didn't work out perfectly,
but nothing ever does.
> That is what I then told sipaq as our expectations, which was
> unfortunately just after he'd done the first post to l10n. Which may
> have lead to doing it via late-l10n.
I have not talked to sipaq about his thinking behind the late-l10n
stuff, so I have no idea what his rationale was. I was not in any way
attempting to imply that it was a bad decision, merely that it had
> Also, I was understanding that the general agreement amongst the
> drivers were not to slip beta 2 further, and hence going into full
> freeze at this time was the best thing to do, and I do think it has
> helped drive in some of those remaining blockers.
Indeed. I think rather than trying to pick through this all now, we'll
do better to talk about it after we've all had a day or two to catch our
breath. Perhaps at the post-mortem...
More information about the tb-planning