On 13/Dec/2010 15:49, Ray Chen wrote: > Hmmm... OK, let's deferring that to the next milestone.
If it wasn't fixed before the code freeze, then there needs to be a good reason why it is being fixed during the testing and publication period. It's the only way we can get stability during testing -- otherwise the code is changing and we never converge on a milestone. If you think this needs to be fixed, just say why, otherwise we'll move the target out to a later date. Regards, Tim > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 13/Dec/2010 15:40, Ray Chen wrote: >>> FYI. >>> This defect should be fixed in this milestone, see >>> http://s.apache.org/harmony/roadmap mentioned by Mark >> >> I see it is targeted to this milestone, I'm questioning whether that is >> correct. >> >> Why do you think it needs to be fixed now rather than deferring to the >> next milestone? >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> On 13/Dec/2010 08:23, Ray Chen wrote: >>>>> Hi Comitters, >>>>> I have reviewed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6656, >>>> seems >>>>> look good. >>>>> I remember that there should be at least two committers to agree to >> apply >>>> a >>>>> patch during code freeze time, right? >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone else can help to review this patch? >>>> >>>> During freeze time we only apply patches that are resolving blocking >>>> issues for the release to ensure we retain stability. >>>> >>>> Is this a regression from behavior that worked in the 5.0M15 milestone? >>>> (I don't think so) or is it a major failure that means we should restart >>>> testing? >>>> >>>> I suggest this may be a candidate for defering until the next milestone. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tim >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
