Re: TARBALLS DUE: Snapshot, Deep Freeze, But No Release Candidate
- From: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>, GNOME Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: TARBALLS DUE: Snapshot, Deep Freeze, But No Release Candidate
- Date: 04 Jun 2002 11:32:07 -0400
On Tue, 2002-06-04 at 08:55, Owen Taylor wrote:
> jacob berkman <jacob ximian com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 12:21, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Tarballs are due for this week's snapshot, formerly known as "Release
> > > Candidate 1". We have 9 release critical bugs  left to squash, so the release
> > > team has opted to push the release candidate back by one week.
> > >
> > > *** However, the final release and deep freeze dates HAVE NOT CHANGED! ***
> > >
> > > As of Monday, no code changes should be committed to shipping modules 
> > > unless directly related to fixing these 9 bugs.
> > to prevent disaster, i really think we need to branch all the modules
> > for gnome 2.0.0 after this freeze point, so that only fixes for these 9
> > bugs go in.
> > since we (ximian/sun/[probably red hat]) are still working on 2.0.1 bug
> > fixing, i'd say HEAD be open for 2.0.1 fixes rather than for 2.x.y
> > hacking.
> > if this freeze is happening tomorrow, then we need to reach a consensus
> > on this quickly.
> I'd really suggest that it would be better to do the 2.0.1 work on
> a branch; it's just a whole lot simpler if you don't have to merge
> the "development" branch onto HEAD at some point, and create
> a new -2-0 branch.
you mean, do 2.0.0 from HEAD, work on 2.0.1 in a branch, and then merge
that up after 2.0.0 comes out?
or something else?
] [Thread Prev