On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:59:44AM +0000, Justin Mason wrote: > Theo Van Dinter writes: > > I'd like to see us start publishing rule updates for 3.1 sometime here > > in the near future. This got me to wondering what our policy should be > > about it, specifically 3.1 code is in R-T-C so should the rules be also? > > Based on history, I don't think we'll be able to get reviews fast enough. > > I think we need to fix the review problems in general, otherwise > we'll never get a 3.1.1 out *anyway*. :(
Yeah, reviews have generally been slow to happen in the past, though the past
couple of days has been pretty good. I moved a bunch of stuff out of the
3.1.1 queue, and we've gotten through a number of tickets/patches recently.
There's still 14 tickets in the queue, though iirc, a bunch of them are
inter-related.
As for the rule updates... Here's my thought. I propose we have the
rule updates be C-T-R to start. If that doesn't work out, we can change
to R-T-C easily. If no one vetos this proposal by 00:00 GMT on 2/28,
we'll take it as the initial policy for the rulesrc area.
PS: I was reminded of a question... The rulesrc stuff, automatic publishing,
etc, all happens for the current development version. What happens when we
release 3.2 and go onto 3.3? Do we want to keep going with automatic updates,
or shift to the manual method? Can the code handle doing automatic updates
for multiple versions? Since it uses results for the previous nightly run,
and that run will only be for the dev version, is it possible to do
auto-updates for released versions?
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but
a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
- George McGovern
pgpL7nc4e13Wn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
