On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Two hours ago, Robby Findler wrote: >> On Friday, October 7, 2011, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >> > The whole point of starting the branch early is that it should *not* >> > be a factor in the decision whether something gets in or not. >> >> Are you saying this should not go in? > > Not at all. I'm only saying that the actual time that the branch is > created should not be a factor in deciding whether something goes in > or not. There should be some caution because the release is close, so > the existence of the release branch and the explicit requests to merge > things in should serve as a general reminder, making people focus more > on getting things stable, but it's not more than that. Specifically, > my intention was not to change what goes into the release, and even if > we switched to create the release branch for 5.2 to be two days > earlier or two days later, I would expect roughly the same contents to > go into the release. > > (And this is in contrast to the previous last-minute-branch-creation, > where such changes *would* usually lead to different contents -- so a > good way to summarize the intention in the longer release-branch > lifetime is to avoid just such changes.) > > In any case, I get the feeling that this is not very clear from the > revised release procedure page -- maybe I should try to make a post > that clarifies things again?
Yes, I think I understand all that, and I don't see why this thread triggered that alarm bell in your mind. I just meant that since the release branch wasn't created yet, that that change was going in by default. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
