PointReleaseProcess

Differences between revisions 8 and 9
Revision 8 as of 2008-01-21 17:14:09
Size: 3056
Editor: yttrium
Comment:
Revision 9 as of 2008-02-07 02:47:26
Size: 3620
Editor: minbar
Comment: update with timeline skeleton from discussion with pitti @ sprint
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 10: Line 10:
Planning stages, for LTS point releases: Between Release minus 6 months and Release minus 2 months:
Line 16: Line 16:
 1. Establish a hit-list of bugs to fix in the point release.  1. Establish a hit-list of bugs to fix in the point release using a milestone. Milestoning bugs is not a committment to including the changes in the point release; they may be deferred after further information becomes available.
Line 18: Line 18:

Release minus 2 months:
 1. Process stable release updates [:StableReleaseUpdates:as normal]. For hardware-enabling fixes, the package should be tested on the affected hardware prior to submitting to sign-off for -proposed.
Line 21: Line 24:
Process stable release updates [:StableReleaseUpdates:as normal]. Once an acceptable number of bugs is believed to be fixed, start building test CD images: Release minus 1 month:

 1. In coordination with QA, verify that all candidate bugs are fixed.
Line 23: Line 28:
 1. If the kernel or associated modules has been changed, upload `debian-installer` after all the binaries are in place. If the ABI changed, make sure to take account of this throughout `debian-installer/build/config/` and in the `installer` seed for all flavours being built.  1. If the kernel or associated modules have been changed, upload `debian-installer` after all the binaries are in place. If the ABI changed, make sure to take account of this throughout `debian-installer/build/config/` and in the `installer` seed for all flavours being built.
Line 27: Line 32:
 1. Contact IS, QA, and/or certification as appropriate to request testing.
 1. Once testing is verified to be complete, release images as final, and move the previous images to `old-releases.ubuntu.com`:

Release minus 3 weeks:
1. Contact IS, QA, and/or certification as appropriate to request testing for hardware recertification.
 1. Iterate CD images as needed based on testing feedback, in coordination with the kernel team.

Release minus 1 week:
 1.
Once testing is verified to be complete, move packages to -updates, release images as final, and move the previous images to `old-releases.ubuntu.com`:

This is an incomplete DRAFT.

To be carried out by: nominated stable release manager, with support from the [https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-sru stable release updates] and [https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release release] teams

Goals:

  • Refresh hardware support in LTS releases for carefully-selected hardware
  • Roll up accumulated stable updates into updated images to reduce download requirements for new deployments
  • Maintain stability of existing installations

Between Release minus 6 months and Release minus 2 months:

  1. Discuss candidates for new or improved hardware support with affected parties. Some sources for this work should be:
    • the Canonical support team (via Steve George)
    • customers
    • the Ubuntu kernel team
    • the Ubuntu QA team
  2. Establish a hit-list of bugs to fix in the point release using a milestone. Milestoning bugs is not a committment to including the changes in the point release; they may be deferred after further information becomes available.
  3. In concert with affected developers, triage the hit-list for feasibility.

Release minus 2 months:

  1. Process stable release updates [:StableReleaseUpdates:as normal]. For hardware-enabling fixes, the package should be tested on the affected hardware prior to submitting to sign-off for -proposed.

  2. Discuss the possibility of a Canonical press release for the point release with Gerry Carr.
  3. Liaise with IS, QA, and certification to arrange for testing resources.

Release minus 1 month:

  1. In coordination with QA, verify that all candidate bugs are fixed.
  2. Upload a new base-files package to -proposed to bump the lsb_release version number ([http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_3.1.9ubuntu7.2/changelog example for 6.06.2]).

  3. If the kernel or associated modules have been changed, upload debian-installer after all the binaries are in place. If the ABI changed, make sure to take account of this throughout debian-installer/build/config/ and in the installer seed for all flavours being built.

  4. Change cdimage/bin/make-web-indices, cdimage/bin/publish-release, and debian-cd/CONF.sh to use the new release version number.

  5. Change cdimage/bin/run-germinate and debian-cd/CONF.sh to build from -proposed temporarily. If live CDs need to be built, also modify cdimage/bin/buildlive.

  6. Build CD images (which will be published and smoke-test in some convenient environment to check for obvious failures.

Release minus 3 weeks:

  1. Contact IS, QA, and/or certification as appropriate to request testing for hardware recertification.
  2. Iterate CD images as needed based on testing feedback, in coordination with the kernel team.

Release minus 1 week:

  1. Once testing is verified to be complete, move packages to -updates, release images as final, and move the previous images to old-releases.ubuntu.com:

    • Prepublish images:

      DIST=dapper ARCHES="i386 amd64 sparc powerpc" for-project ubuntu publish-release ubuntu-server/daily 20080110.1 server poolonly (similar for alternates, desktops, etc.)

    • TODO much more detail here
  2. Create a snapshot of the archive:

    lp_archive@drescher:~$ point-release-snapshot dapper dapper.2-security-updates-snapshot

    which will create a hardlink farm in ~lp_archive/point-releases/.

  3. File a bug on [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bugs ubuntu-website] to have https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuHashes updated.

TODO:

  • Anything else?
  • Standard criteria for adding -updates tag to bugs

PointReleaseProcess (last edited 2022-02-22 09:39:35 by sil2100)