On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:55:22PM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
Of course the release manager should have the last say and as the
release manager it's totally valid for Andreas to delete the branch.
Apologies for taking initiative. I was really just trying to unstick
Paul and get things
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch by now,
but I don't see one. Is the trunk totally frozen
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
I wish you hadn't done that. We shouldn't be making the branch
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
I wish
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for
--On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
I appreciate that you were trying to help.
I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
svn delete should solve that problem :-)
-aj
pgpwMOGS2dLXV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
I appreciate that you were trying to help.
I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
svn delete should solve that problem :-)
Of course the
--On 13. November 2005 14:55:22 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I'd like to understand the rationale for not branching at the time
if the feature freeze (Nov 1). Is it just to avoid the work of merging
changes from the branch back the HEAD during the period between the
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 21:07 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
Branches aka new features should be merged into the
HEAD if they are considered to be stable. The reason for this approach but
be to have the HEAD in a reasonable stable state and to be able to cut a
release branch at any time.
Yup.
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 12:38 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 15:20 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 21:07 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
Branches aka new features should be merged into the
HEAD if they are considered to be stable. The reason for this approach but
be to have the HEAD in a reasonable stable state
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 14:55 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
...
Also, it sounds as if there's an argument being made that *everyone*
should pitch in to get 2.9 beta out the door *instead* of committing
Zope 2 feature work and the delayed
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know if those bugs should prevent a beta or not. But there
needs to be some criteria other than feature completeness.
To create the branch or a beta release? I realize there's a desire to
tie these acts together but still don't
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:07 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know if those bugs should prevent a beta or not. But there
needs to be some criteria other than feature completeness.
To create the branch or a beta release? I realize
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch by now,
but I don't see one. Is the trunk totally frozen now or what?
Is it too
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
- C
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 14:56 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at
Yep, it's a free-for-all again. ;-) Although probably it's better to
create a branch and get some consensus before merging it as opposed to
landing stuff directly on the trunk.
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 22:14 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:59:45PM -0500, Chris McDonough
--On 12. November 2005 14:56:45 -0500 Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1. No new features for the November releases should
be added after October 31. The Zope trunks should be stable and ready for a
beta
release on November 1.
We are committed to time-based
20 matches
Mail list logo
