String and feature freeze

Dan Mosedale dmose at
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 
> realistic.
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 
surprised me.
> 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 mailing list