Yes, that's what I'm saying, because: 1 week (max) delay in pushing/merging is probably a better alternative for features mostly ready and waiting for feedback before a final yeah/nay, than somebody eagly pushing them to get them in before the deadline and having to revert them later because they weren't sufficiently reviewed.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think a week extension would be good for projects that are under >> review, but I don't think it should be extended for development on >> those features (except to address issues from the review). This would >> also encourage people to push something potentially disruptive to >> ReviewBoard instead of committing at the last minute and having to >> revert it later. That would allow us to review stuff that has been >> ready, but not committed because people have been busy finishing other >> features for the feature freeze and haven't had time to review it yet. >> >> > Just to make sure I'm reading this right: > > you're saying we include things that are in review board as of the original > feature freeze date? And then they get pushed post-feature-freeze date once > their reviews have iterated to acceptance? > > > -- > Sean
