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.

Reply via email to