On Dec 15, 2007 3:54 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > My personal feeling is that we created update.1 too soon. IMO > > development should have been occurring in the joyride builds up until > > code freeze (yesterday, or a week from yesterday). There's no reason > > to fork update.1 just for string freezes; translation can still occur > > in the joyride branch. Code freeze is the point at which we should > > fork the builds. I approve of delaying code freeze slightly in the > > interest of making the freeze firmer when it occurs. > > +1 > > The moment we create a release branch and start cherry picking > packages for inclusion one by one, we effectively are already > in some sort of code freeze. > > Many centralized projects I've worked for tend to have a 2/3 > development and 1/3 code freeze time share in each release cycle, > which seem like a good compromise for a lightweight development > process that still allows enough time for stabilization. > > Moreover, I was very confused by the fact that we branched Update.1 > from Ship.2 rather than from Joyride, which I still considered our > development trunk. Until a few days ago, I've been working under > the assumption that all the work I had done in Joyride before > Dec 15 would implicitly show up in Update.1.
Exactly. Can we get this right for Update.2? :) Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
