Re: glade 3 UI freeze break request

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 8/20/07, Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 18:28 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> [...]
> > > Frankly, I don't really like the way you are pushing this change. It is
> > > kind of pre-emptying the decision. It would have been nicer to wait
> > > until you get the approval to commit it..
> >
> > Strongly agree.  Tristan, please revert in svn until you get the
> > necessary approvals.
>
> To tell you the honest truth, I made the code change in svn because
> its been waiting for months and I didnt want to let it slide, also
> its a popular feature that people would probably want in 3.4.
>
> That being said, firing the UI freeze break request was only a single
> operation amongst the review, work I had to do to get the patch
> integratable, bugmail & changelog updates etc... I really do weigh
> things in terms of work, and doing a half hour research project to
> prepare a formal paper to present to the release comittee is a
> really significant amount of work; much more then casually hollering
> over your shoulder to the release team dude beside you and hoping
> to get an answer soonish.
>
> > Also, as per http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/RequestingFreezeBreaks,
> > you haven't provided rationale as to why this change is needed, and
> > why it's needed now.  The bug has been open for quite some time.  Can
> > you please address this issue to make it easier to weigh?
> >
> > Sorry if it sounds like I'm being draconian; but maybe I am.  :-)  I
> > do appreciate your hard work.
>
> I understand and I dont take offense to your comments, as I noted
> in the bug report its simply a matter of adjusting the xml catalog
> to make sure the dialog doesnt apear in glade thus the UI will not
> have changed.
>
> I'm not about to go reading the bug report and wasting more of our
> precious energies just to get a feature in one release cycle earlier,
> I'll disable the dialog in svn and re-enable it if I get another OK
> from the release team.
>
> In the same vain, I hope I'm not bashing on the release team
> because I think they're doing great things too, I'm just not
> prepared to spend more time & energy just to break the UI freeze -
> I requested the freeze and if you decide to deny it then just
> deny it.

I hope this doesn't come across as bashing either, as I think you are
doing great work.  I am a little worried that there's a missing
understanding of the handling and importance of freezes.  Obviously,
half an hour to write a freeze break request would be excessive;
perhaps you just threw out that number because I missed the scope of
this bug and your change turns out to be relatively innocuous.  I
don't know.  But, I do believe that the freeze shouldn't be broken
until approved; if you don't have more time and energy than a quick
holler for breaking a freeze, then it's probably best to just let the
freeze remain in place.

Also, we don't in general act to deny requests; in fact, no one
release team member can really ensure a request is denied, since any
two r-t member approvals will change it from denied (the default) to
approved.  Anyway, Frederic gave one somewhat tentative approval, but
no one else did.  So this never received the necessary approvals.
Please go ahead and disable/revert.

Thanks,
Elijah