The party in Hamburg decided that releases were every six months, so some would be on non-LTS kernels.
But then, 2020.01 is coming up fast and a branch hasn’t been cut yet. Nor have PRs been reviewed on a timely basis. The current thread on PRs on the mailing list has been all about hiding the symptoms, not addressing the problems. Worse is that it is a fox guarding the henhouse situation.
yeah, if someone knows that they had a meeting and that someone has written down the meeting somewhere in the wiki first, aka someone that most likely does not even need that as is following the mailing list. There is no backlink to it from the main page nor mention elsewhere.
You already know what I think about the searching, if it was so good we would have no structure and just a search box in a blank page.
buildbot will likely build the rc1 images hopefully in 2-3 days, and then the rc1 will be formally announced.
The speed of the build phase will depend on the amount of buildslaves grandted for 19.07 and currently there is only one active slave, so the omage build could take some time...
The final 19.07.0 release will then depend on the possible bugs/feedback from the wider 19.07 user testing. And possibly there could also the rc2 and/or rc3...
(So far the testing has only been done with enthusiasts, as there have been no public rc builds.)
The alternative would be that the tagged releases (and RCs) weren't part of the linear history. This has disadvantages, like "git describe" not working as expected and not being able to do a ff pull from one release to the next. Personally I prefer the rollback commits with one nice history from release to release.
That was done with the earliest 17.01 releases (17.01.0 and 17.01.1) and was noticed to be problematic like you describe, and so the practice was modified to be this rollback commit style where all releases are visible in the linear commit history of the branch.