On 10 April 2013 22:01, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Robbie Gemmell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > Okay, then I think it's better if we bump things out at least a > little. Proposal: reset RC2 for 19 April. > > Justin > > Sounds good to me.
Robbie
