On Sep 5, 2012 11:48 AM, Galen Charlton g...@esilibrary.com wrote:
Hi,
On 09/05/2012 11:41 AM, Bill Erickson wrote:
Surely there's a psychological difference between 2.2.3 and 2.3.0,
but I don't see one in practice. If anything, 2.2.3 has *more* cause
to be handled with kid gloves, since
Hi All,
We've reached the stage in the release cycle where we have to limit which bug
fixes can be merged into 2.3 RC to prevent unnecessary disruption to the
soon-to-be GA code. However, we don't want to limit bug merges in the 2.3
branch, because anything that doesn't make the GA release
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Bill Erickson erick...@esilibrary.com wrote:
Hi All,
We've reached the stage in the release cycle where we have to limit which bug
fixes can be merged into 2.3 RC to prevent unnecessary disruption to the
soon-to-be GA code. However, we don't want to limit
On Sep 5, 2012, at 08:27 , Bill Erickson wrote:
[...]
2. I'd like to change the definition of showstopper, i.e. what can and
cannot make it into an RC. I propose that any reasonable bug fix may be
merged into an RC provided the commit has 3 sign-offs in total -- the author,
plus 2
Hi,
On 09/05/2012 09:27 AM, Bill Erickson wrote:
1. Create an origin/rel_2_3_rc1 branch. (I mentioned this briefly
in my recent RC1 planning email). It will be a child of
tags/rel_2_3_rc1. All fixes that meet the RC standards (more below)
may be merged into this branch. tags/rel_2_3_0, and
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:22:55AM -0400, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On 09/05/2012 09:27 AM, Bill Erickson wrote:
1. Create an origin/rel_2_3_rc1 branch. (I mentioned this briefly
in my recent RC1 planning email). It will be a child of
tags/rel_2_3_rc1. All fixes that meet the RC
Hi,
On 09/05/2012 11:41 AM, Bill Erickson wrote:
Surely there's a psychological difference between 2.2.3 and 2.3.0,
but I don't see one in practice. If anything, 2.2.3 has *more* cause
to be handled with kid gloves, since 2.2 is much more widely used in
production systems.
.0 releases often
