On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 06:57 +0200, Martin Baehr wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:21:39PM -0400, Og Maciel wrote: > > Let's go with what we have now... we can always release GNOME 2.28 > > later... we *are* a rolling release distro after all :) > > i am confused why this is even a discussion item. if something is ready, > then promote it to stable. done. >
Originally, António poked me earlier yesterday and said he felt it was time to pull the lever and promote from fl:2-qa -> fl:2. I then asked how he knew that -qa was in a state where it would be sane to do so and the predictable answer was that it was in his head. It is my perception that "Back in the day", Ken, Paul and António just did the right thing when it came to releases, but it would appear that telepathy is an acquired skill which most of us new people obviously haven't quite got the hang of yet. Now, as one of my stated goals of becoming a member is to instrument our development process a little better (or to understand the existing instrumentation a little better), I decided to try to call a crunch to get an idea about our status wrt. bugs filed against us. Getting a table of issues up on the 2.1.2 Roadmap page was one of the ways to make that status visible and to hopefully spur people on to do something about the unresolved issues. So, at the time I asked the original question, there were 30+ open issues filed with 'fix for version 2.1.2' and another ten or so filed against '2.0.x' - I merely wanted to point out that either those issues should be deferred to 2.2 or they should be triaged and fixed before we release. And if we fixed a bunch of simple issues, we might have to do more promotes before we got to the point where we could in good conscience cut a 2.1.2 release with ISOs, release notes and the works. You said it yourself earlier in the thread: We suffer from "Be there (IRC) or be square"-itis. This is my attempt at trying to change that. But I'm curious to know what your definition of ready is and whether you have another proposal for how to instrument our release 'process'? > btw: i think it might be helpful to know what is new in -qa so that > people can manage expectations and also know on what to test. > > do i run conary diff fl:2--fl:2-devel for that? This could be very useful if that's indeed how it is done. António? -ermo _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list Foresight-devel@lists.rpath.org http://lists.rpath.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
