On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:48:18AM +0100, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > Hey! > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:31:35AM +0900, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > > In my opinion the release process should be adjusted to impact the least > > possible the ongoing activities; I think using a release branch to > > prepare the release would achieve this, relieving the need to carefully > > communicate (and enforce) some code freeze on the master branch. > Sorry, Maxim, but this is not really relevant to this discussion. We > (as a project) sometimes need to address issues with committers and the > current state of the art fails at this. Changing the release process > could (maybe) address this one particular thing, but—as we discussed at > Guix Days—we might not want to complicate the release process more than > it already is. (...)
Hi Gabriel, As I understand it the proposal is not an *additional* (optional) communications method. Rather the idea is that there would be a *replacement* method. This means that all committers/team members have to change their workflow, so it's quite a high bar to clear. I *don't* think you've demonstrated that changing "current state of the art" is critical (yet). Perhaps the 'context' is obvious to those that attended Guix Days and there was a full debate about this. Since we weren't all there I feel I'm missing some parts. I'd suggest relaying more of the context from that discussion, so that others can understand. Without more context/evidence I don't find the rationale for the proposed change (at the start of the email chain) that strong. There's a single example of telling ALL committers that there was a freeze. If one message a year to all committers requires their attention then this isn't going to justify wholesale change of the communications. It's arguable that devs don't monitor the mailing list because there are very few announcements that they need to know. It would be a strong rationale if there are more clear cases where there's a need and it can't be answered by an adjustment to the current method. Whether that adjustment is changing our process, creating a mailing list for announcements or simply emailing the people in question. If the statement is that this announcement is so important that ALL committers needed to know it then sending them a direct email would have been justified. Just a thought, Steve / Futurile.
