I think we should have a volunteer on deck as RM for the next major release at any given time, and so this person would/should be concerned about the state of trunk. Good idea.
As for me asking for a "soft freeze" on 0.98, I thank you for your indulgence and it will be a thing of the past after the 0.98.0 release. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:09 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > We currently have 4 branches (0.94, 0.96, 0.98, and trunk). > For bug and test fixes, do we really need the release managers to agree to > every single check-in. > Andy > currently wants to stabilize the tests in 0.98 so looking at every > change there makes sense and was specifically requested by him. > > What about 0.94, 0.96, and trunk. I do not feel like I need to be pinged > for every bug/test fix for 0.94. > > I > would propose that committers use good judgment and commit small > changes to fix bugs and tests to any branch without a nod from the RMs, > unless specifically request as with 0.98. If we can't trust a committer > with that, (s)he should not be a committer. > For larger fixes and any new feature the RMs should be pinged of course. > > > Related to this, it seems we're a little loose with trunk as in "It's OK > it's just trunk". Trunk will become a release eventually and IMHO we should > aim for keeping trunk in a releasable state as much as this is possible. > If we had done that before 0.96, Stack would not have had to face the > superhuman task of getting 0.96 back to a releasable state. > > Does trunk need a release manager? > > > Comments? > > -- Lars > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
