Re: [G2R] Re: gtk+ 2.0.4 release?

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 20:26, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > It simply doesn't make sense for me to do a GTK+ release without
> >  
> >  a) Spending at least a few hours looking at bugzilla for 
> >     critical stuff.
> 
> 	Which reminds me ... it looks[1] like Gtk+ is not complying with the
> freeze guidelines, which are that anything committed to the branch
> intended for gnome 2.0.0 must be approved first by the release team.
> 
> 	My feeling is that not understanding how frustrating it is having to go
> through the release team before committing anything, leads to a
> difference of opinion as to our future branching strategy as well (
> incidentally ).
> 
> 	So - anyway, can you confirm that the gtk+ team is aware of the freeze
> and abiding by it ? or is there some special dispensation I'm un-aware
> of for you.

Well, honestly, I've never really inquired as to whether the freeze
procedure covers GTK+ or not, because I don't think it's useful to ask
questions when you are going to ignore the answer.

I simply don't have time for doing a lot of extra steps; the effect
would simply be that the release team would be left with GTK+-2.0.3.

Is GTK+ (and associated modules) essentially different from other
modules? Probably not; though there are differences:

 - It's big
 - It has no external GNOME dependencies.
 - We branched and froze months earlier than any other part of the GNOME release.
 - We are putting potentially destabilizing stuff on HEAD not on the
   2.0.x branch.

But I'm not arguing that GTK+ is different, or that the freeze
procedures are bad; my position is just that I barely have time to do
the standard (extensive) GTK+ release procedures.

Regards,
                                        Owen