>From latest discussions on IRC, conclusion is this: * We will do an RC3 as the changes in this commit are non-trivial and fix regressions. * Some other minor fixes were committed, but we will not be merging more fixes to the 2.69 release branch unless there is a very good reason for them. * RC3 ahoy will follow soon.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Bastien Montagne <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
