On 10 April 2013 21:30, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Robbie Gemmell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was about to ask if you could elaborate on what you meant in my other > > reply when I saw this mail arive to answer my question. > > > > At this point we don't really anticpate requiring extra time in the > overall > > schedule (which if I'm following right, seems to be on track for RC2 end > of > > this week, RC3 end of next week, vote the week after if all is good?). > > Moving RC2 to Monday might let us get some more final changes into it, > but > > I understand if you'd like to release it on Friday in case anyone else > > wants to hack on things at the weekend :) > > To be frank, I think it's inadvisable to make improvements this late, > even if you're careful, without adding more time in the schedule for > testing. Unintended consequences happen to everyone. >
I'm not really arguing against taking more time, I was just trying to convey that we don't anticipate introducing a need for additional time in the event that was the primary concern. That is, we would rather make the changes on the same schedule versus not making the changes at all if it needed more time. I'd be happy to bump RC2 or 3 out a week, or add RC4 if necessary. > > That said, I'm not in the best position to judge the risk here; you > and Rob are. By saying "you'll own the outcome", I mean that I have > faith that if there does end up being a problem, you'll handle it. > > No problem here deferring RC2 to Monday. Just so there are no > coordination hangups, you should make the changes discussed here at > your discretion. > > Justin > > > Ok, thanks Justin. Robbie
