On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 08:27, John J. Allen wrote: > On Wednesday 21 August 2002 03:27, Ben Reser wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:24:12AM +1000, Ron Stodden wrote: > > > No good. It cannot be done for two good reasons: > > > That's silly to expect that there should be a freeze. cooker is the > > distribution as it stands right now on it's way to a release. cooker is > > used as the repository to build it against. cooker allows the > > developers to post fixes for beta issues. etc etc etc... > > > > No, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect a freeze, or at least have > non-essential Cooker updates parked between beta cycles. > > ie. BETA1 Cooker frozen for 1 week, re-opens for a week after that, then BETA2 > etc, etc, etc till we get to RC
So, um, where is anyone going to do development? We release beta 1 on a Monday then freeze for a week. Someone reports a showstopper bug on Tuesday; where does it get fixed before beta 2? We wait until the end of beta 1 phase the next Monday? I don't see how this benefits anyone. I also don't see how freezing Cooker to the state of one of the beta .isos benefits anyone. Explain, please. -- adamw
