Re: Lets get branches names right this time (was: Re: Proposed release process/plans)

On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 21:02, Chema Celorio wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 12:39, Bill Haneman wrote:

> > OK;
> > 
> > Does anyone have an issue with me using gnome-2-0-0 for

Why does my choice to do this impact your choice to branch 2-0 away from
HEAD sooner?  Or perhaps you misunderstood my question...


> > 2.0.0-release-only code, and continuing to use HEAD for 2.0.1 until it
> > enters a "deeper" freeze?  That way at least the branch names for the
> > actual release candidates match up.
> I do.
> See, i don't have a lot of libgnomeprint bugs right now that are fixable
> in a 2.0.1 timeframe. We (1) disabled multiple printers, that takes care
> of a lot of the current problems, the gpa stuff is a lot simpler with
> one printer. (2) We only have a PS backend. And API additions are not
> 2.0.1 material for adding new features, even if the API additions are
> small.
> I am starting to think that gnome-print is different from the rest,
> because it was very late for the gnome 2.0 cycle. So in summary: the low
> number of fixable bugs is mainly because we used only a small subset of
> features. 
> My short term plans for gnome-print are not 2.0.1 releasable material
> given the general idea of stability and freezness that the rest of the
> platform is aiming for.
> Or, if you think libgnomeprint[ui] is buggy, please bugzilla it to prove
> me wrong ;-). But nobody is arguing that it needs lots and lots of love,
> it does.
> On a different note, it seems to me that we are trying to enforce
> stability by playing with the branching strategy. I.E. Don't allow
> people to have a HEAD branch where they can do crazy stuff so that they
> keep fixing bugs only and not new features. 
> regards,
> Chema
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]