Re: Freeze?
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:33:56PM +1000, Dr Paul Dale wrote: > I’m seeing quite a bit of activity going on which isn’t related to the > 3.0beta1 milestone. > We’re well past the cutoff date announced for new features in the code. > > Should we be limiting the “new” stuff going in? > > I’m fine with bug fixes, they make sense. I’m fine with the list of beta1 > pull requests continuing. > It’s the rest that is more concerning. I think we should stop accepting any new changes that are not clearly related to fixing issues that have been introduced during the development of 3.0. Of course, bugs can always be fixed. We've previously announced the deadline for beta 1 to be the 8th of September. Clearly not everything needed is ready. But at some point we will have to make the beta 1 release. Kurt
Re: Freeze?
As a sponsor of this release, we are concerned about further slippages in the schedule. I understand open source and “scratch your itch” and all that, but the project made a commitment and several companies have contributed money and/or engineering time. Some of those groups are making plans based on discussed schedules and yes, I am sure that those people are not naïve about it. I’d like the project to make a statement saying that, unless it’s a regression or breakage, the only PR’s that will be merged for the near future are those directly related to the agreed-upon FIPS work.
Re: Freeze?
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:17 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:33:56PM +1000, Dr Paul Dale wrote: > > I’m seeing quite a bit of activity going on which isn’t related to the > 3.0beta1 milestone. > > We’re well past the cutoff date announced for new features in the code. > > > > Should we be limiting the “new” stuff going in? > > > > I’m fine with bug fixes, they make sense. I’m fine with the list of > beta1 pull requests continuing. > > It’s the rest that is more concerning. > > > > Does anyone else have a similar view? > > I think we should probably avoid putting in large or potentially > destabilizing changes, but don't see much reason to put a total freeze in > place (even with your listed exceptions). > I agree with Ben. -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
