1.5.0.1 and other no-l10n-impact releases and sign-offs

Hi all,

there has been a general consensus that the sign-off process we were 
following on the 1.0.x branch was a bit wasteful and time-intensive.

I was internally proposing something more streamlined for releases 
without l10n impact, and that is, that we drop the sign-off requirement 
for those releases and just go for a QA commitment. This includes that 
l10n-teams and their communities feel invited to the regular Firefox QA 
testing days (next one will be tomorrow).

I want to ping you on this, and though this is on short notice, I guess 
we'll go for it, unless you raise principal concerns.

This does not govern locales that would take changes for a minor 
release, though we didn't manage to do that for the 1.5.0.1 release. 
l10n just branched, and we're in RC phase, so I don't think it would be 
a good idea to do that now. Which is sad, but true. I'm afraid that 
branching for 1.8.0 did suffer from the jet lag that we took in the 1.5 
release of Firefox still, and I'm still not really out of it yet.

I still need to poke folks for feedback on how the l10n impact of 
branching ifdefs on trunk vs 1.8.1 work, I did that twice up to now, to 
no avail.

Axel
0
Axel
1/18/2006 10:42:08 PM
netscape.public.mozilla.l10n 1546 articles. 0 followers. Follow

2 Replies
311 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 33

Doing a fake reply to expose this in the new group.

Axel

Axel Hecht wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> there has been a general consensus that the sign-off process we were 
> following on the 1.0.x branch was a bit wasteful and time-intensive.
> 
> I was internally proposing something more streamlined for releases 
> without l10n impact, and that is, that we drop the sign-off requirement 
> for those releases and just go for a QA commitment. This includes that 
> l10n-teams and their communities feel invited to the regular Firefox QA 
> testing days (next one will be tomorrow).
> 
> I want to ping you on this, and though this is on short notice, I guess 
> we'll go for it, unless you raise principal concerns.
> 
> This does not govern locales that would take changes for a minor 
> release, though we didn't manage to do that for the 1.5.0.1 release. 
> l10n just branched, and we're in RC phase, so I don't think it would be 
> a good idea to do that now. Which is sad, but true. I'm afraid that 
> branching for 1.8.0 did suffer from the jet lag that we took in the 1.5 
> release of Firefox still, and I'm still not really out of it yet.
> 
> I still need to poke folks for feedback on how the l10n impact of 
> branching ifdefs on trunk vs 1.8.1 work, I did that twice up to now, to 
> no avail.
> 
> Axel
0
Axel
1/22/2006 6:26:17 PM
Hi,
as there is no negative feedback on this, we're going to streamline our 
process for the minor update releases significantly and won't block on that.

I encourage all owners, peers, and interested users of localizations to 
heavily participate on QA testing days to get the best testing possible 
on all of our builds so that we don't end up regretting this.


Axel
0
Axel
1/25/2006 5:53:59 PM
Reply: