Re: GConf reverse string freeze breakage approval

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>]

On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 13:17 +0200, Danilo Åegan wrote:
> Today at 12:58, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 
> > 	This all seems a little over the top. I approved the change on the 9th
> > and you committed it on the 10th. As far as I'm concerned, the string
> > freeze only really comes into effect when the release goes out, which in
> > this case was on the 10th.
> 
> Translators and documentors don't work with the releases, but rather,
> with CVS.  Do you really expect translators to track all releases? 
> (note that tracking CVS and branches is not easy in itself)

	My point is only that freezes don't instantly come in to effect at a
strict date and time. The way maintainers have generally enforced it is
that the freeze comes into effect for a module either when the
tarball[1] has been rolled, or if no tarball was rolled for that
release, when the release itself went out.

	So, if I was a translator, and I looked at the schedule I would expect
the string freeze for a given module to be in effect once the maintainer
rolled the 2.11.91 release or once the GNOME 2.11.91 release was
official. I'd probably just have waited until August the 11th.

	All I'm really saying is that I don't think the hard string freeze was
in effect when this change was approved or committed.

Cheers,
Mark.

[1] - so, e.g. if the string freeze is supposed to come into effect from
Beta 2 onwards, the maintainer starts enforcing it once he has rolled
the 2.11.91 tarball