For the record, if we decide to do RC3 instead of release (which I'd find more sensible now), I will also backport two oneliners - both are full secure, and one is a fix for a new 2.69 feature (not sure this has same status as regression?): 60857 and 60858.
On 21/10/2013 15:26, Sergey Sharybin wrote: > I would strictly recommend stop backporting fixes for a not-a-regression > but to release branch. 60774 is a fix for 36905 which is not a regression. > It is NOT to be merged. > > And strictly speaking 60766 should have not been merged. Not as if is to be > reverted, but next time one merged not-a-regression fix to release branch > he'll get kicked. Seriously, we can not fix all the bugs in release, we > could only fix regressions. And having bunch of changes happening after tag > just makes things more complicated. > > Also the fact that we've got a regression in RC2 comparing to RC1 (#37100) > needs to be investigated further. I would not expect regressions in RC(N) > comparing to RC(N-1). > > Assuming that Shinsuke mentioned 2 more revisions (even one-liner) to be > merged, i would call it RC3 today, NOT a release. > > Brecht, do you agree with having RC3 today? > > P.S. Splash is to be changed again it seems. > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Thomas Dinges <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My point here is, that we agreed on doing proper proper Release >> Candidates and Release now. >> I don't mind a small one-liner, in this case we could risk it. >> >> But since RC2 we had 60845, 60871 and 60875 with backports...also not >> all of them seem to be really showstopper bugs? >> >> I know we have a lot to handle this week, but I see no reason to rush >> the release. If we can't handle it properly this week, do it next week. >> >> Am 21.10.2013 14:57, schrieb Thomas Dinges: >>> Yesterday we talked about just 1 or 2 one-liners, and now it's getting >>> more. >>> In this case we maybe should consider doing a RC3... >>> >>> Also, we should only backport regressions. Is 60774 a regression? >>> >>> Am 21.10.2013 14:41, schrieb Antony Riakiotakis: >>>> Hey Campbell, could you merge 60774 as well? >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bf-blender-cvs mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-blender-cvs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bf-committers mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
