On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:06 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > -1: I think with the release process hiccups and the Win issues > noted in the "Current branche 2.4.30-dev issues" thread, > we will need a 2.4.31. Additionally, there are some > backports in STATUS that could also be folded in.
Very sensible. I think our odds of a successful 2.4.31 increase dramatically if the community will please continue their 2.4.30 review as if it would become the release. Hold off any re-spin for a couple days to allow that to happen as it usually would. If 2.4.31 remains relatively static vs. 2.4.30, it minimizes the number of additional regressions, e.g. hold 2.4.x branch to showstoppers or regression fixes of 2.4.29/2.4.30 only for a few days. Reviewing a lightly modified 2.4.31 candidate becomes much simpler if 2.4.30 candidate has been beaten on, sufficiently.
