On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:02 PM, David Brownell<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote: >> My current feeling about 0.2 is that we should allow at least >> a week of work on the outstanding reset problems before we cut >> the release. > > That seems reasonable. Likewise some of the issues turning > up with different JTAG adapters. > > It's funny how folk tend to really start testing heavily > once it seems the release is likely to happen in the next > day or two. ;)
Very human behavior. We create a sense of urgency to get "my problem fix before release"... Perhaps we should capitalize on this and create a rule that exploits it? Create a release timeout counter which is reset upon acknowledged regressions reported? > During that week ... should there be a policy on commits, > with explicit ACKs/NAKs required? Commits can go in after > the 0.2.0 tarball ships, of course; temporary delays only. What about cutting the release and waiting a week to see if anything of note appears? Upon resetting the release timeout counter, we cut a new release. The release will be of some well defined subversion # in the past. Cutting a release is *cheap* right? -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://www.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
