On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:42:10PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > When we branch 2.3, this branch would be named "2.3.x", right? The > > slightly weird thing would be that the release manager would be in > > charge of the 2.3.x branch until 2.3.0 and then the stable branch > > 2.3.x is good for devs and less good for 2.3 because it gets less attention.
I don't understand what you mean here. Can you give more details? Do you mean that if there is a "2.3.x" branch, devs might commit patches that could be a little risky for 2.3.0, where if there is instead a "2.3.0" branch, the name makes us be more careful about such patches? > OTOH if the manager is sloppy with deadlines people get very frustrated about > the freeze and that is not good either. +1 > Anyway I think that the manager should have major word in decisions like this > because he will have the burden/responsibility for whatever decision is taken. > > So let's get to the point: Are you willing to be release manager for 2.3? Yes. My main hesitation is that there are several parts of LyX's code where I am completely lost, and that's not a good quality of a release manager. And when we get to the stage where every commit requires careful review, I would need more help from others than a more experienced developer. I will not give a +1 for a patch that I don't understand, even in some cases where the patch if just a few line changes. I think this is a disadvantage, and I think it could slow down the release and cause some frustration (even taking into consideration that everyone will of course help with reviewing). The advantage of having a more experienced developer as the release manager is that they could: 1. Review every patch. 2. If there is a critical bug that is holding up a release, they can just put in the time and fix it. I'm not saying that the experienced developer *would* actually review every patch and fix every critical bug. My point is that if there is a deadline, it is nice if the release manager at least has the knowledge to *potentially* do it. So yes, I am willing to be the release manager, but I am also willing to have a more knowledgeable developer as the release manager if one volunteers. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
