<quote who="Elijah Newren"> > > Dude, why are we supporting this *wholly inappropriate* late breakage? This > > is not the kind of change that we should meekly accept at this stage of the > > release process. We don't *have* to do this, and we *shouldn't* do it. This > > is a choice between release discipline and riding a train wreck. > > I don't believe this is a fair representation. Rodney made the change > mid-January, and released it in the gnome-icon-themes-2.13.5 tarball. > He also notified desktop-devel-list, at > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-January/msg00302.html. > Now, he did miss feature freeze by about a day, so if this is > considered a new feature then sure it was late (though just barely). > I had thought it was just a UI change, which he beat the deadline for > by a few weeks.
This really goes deeper than 'feature' or 'UI' change. I would not be making a fuss if it were that simple, without unintended side-effects, or without creating a whole new class of bugs to deal with in just one month. This is a major change which ought to be done at the start of a release process, with a strategy for tackling bugs (very much like what Federico has suggested) as they come up. Look at the conversation about making g-i-t a 'platform API' - now how major do you think this change is? :-) - Jeff -- FOSDEM 2006: Brussels, Belgium http://www.fosdem.org/2006 We're kind of like Canada, only we hate ourselves more, and it's wetter around the edges. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
