-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Harris wrote: > I don't think it was unclear. It said basically what I've said above. > It has been revised and now says something I don't agree with, because > I'm concerned that for each minor point release we will have to > revisit what "trivial" means, what should go in and what shouldn't, > and the associated bug-introduction risks I've already banged on > about, when we should be focussing on making a release to address one > of the above non-trivial issues.
I think that due to the nature of the minor point releases (MPR) being triggered by a significant issue, there is more motivation to move them out the door as quickly as possible. With that motivation in mind, and to avoid the issue of tying up an MPR debating what is "trivial" or not, I think it's safe to say that if there's not a clear consensus on a particular fix, the default is that it can wait. Anything not significant enough to trigger an MPR on it's own requires clear consensus (even if it's a lazy consensus) to be included. If there's any significant debate about a particular fix, it doesn't go in the MPR. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? - -- Sean T. Evans -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkn69N4ACgkQmQpMBUWJpdtA1wCfZsh0ff6G5wWhVZX1ebWoA1NE 6QgAn0kqGSRAy+dOGt8POE1g036xQgDn =7/uv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
