Re: GConf reverse string freeze breakage approval

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

On 8/14/05, Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 15:57 +0200, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> > Today at 13:48, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 
> > >     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.
> >
> > And all I'm saying is that I disagree.  But it doesn't matter much
> > now, we shouldn't make a big fuss out of it since it's already
> > approved (precisely for the reason that we're *early* in the string
> > freeze).  There is some merit in the claim that freeze only starts
> > after the tarball is released, but it's unpractical to make it that
> > (for explained reasons: tracking 69 modules is simply too much). And
> > according to schedule, tarballs should have been ready by 8th, so we
> > are already using that as a guideline.
> 
>         Okay, probably the best way to make it less confusing for translators
> is to say that the freeze kicks in after the release - i.e. in this case
> it would have been the 11th. Sound reasonable?

I had thought of freezes and releases the same way Mark does (occurs
when release is made, at latest the Wednesday specified in the
schedule; translators would just pick "after Wednesday" if they wanted
something simple and consistent).  I do see how it wasn't very clear,
though (the schedule itself is confusing as it spreads the freeze
begins message over 3 days; well, except for hard code freeze that
occurs on a Monday because there's no associated release).  Probably
yet another thing that we need to document better.  That and what
"after Wednesday" means (start of Thursday for Australia?  for
Hawaii?)  I should start throwing all this stuff that needs to be
documented into a list somewhere...

Elijah