Re: .3 releases

ons, 24.01.2007 kl. 12.51 -0500, skrev Luis Villa:
> On 1/24/07, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
> > On 1/24/07, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> > > Discussion on IRC right now...
> > > Some maintainers have a hard time finding time to do stable .3 releases.
> > > And they already don't have enough time for 2.17.
> > >
> > > Some pointed out that no distro is using .3 releases, so it looks like
> > > much effort for nothing.
> >
> > Hmmm...seems to reflect my habits a bit as well; I've often treated .3
> > releases as optional, only making them if there were important
> > bugfixes I wanted to make available.  I know that some module
> > maintainers may feel like fixing bugs on the stable branch is useless
> > if we don't make a release (I would), and even if distributors don't
> > use a full GNOME 2.even.3 release, they might include individual
> > package updates.
> >
> > Maybe we should just explicitly state somewhere that additional
> > package releases are optional for .3 releases, and that we're just
> > trying to publicize any important fixes in modules that do make
> > releases?  Does that sound sane, or am I talking crazy?
> FWIW, as a distributor, I wouldn't ship anything except .0, since all
> the freezes go up in smoke after .0, making them likely to be less
> stable than .0, not more so. But I'm quality-paranoid.
If this is a real concern among distros I think we should rethink how we
spend our resources. I don't really agree though since all patches
should be reviewed by the module maintainers anyway so QA surely isn't
supposed to be worse than what it is up until the .0 release?

If it is we need to fix that instead. IMHO.


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