On Dec 15, 2007 7:35 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 11:01 PM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Declaring code freeze for Update.1 today would not see a rational > > resolution of these issue. As promised, this is a release that is > > driven by completion of content, rather than driven by necessity of > > hardware schedules. > > On the Sugar side, the main reason of the delay is that dealing with > the various release process steps has been a lot more painful then it > needs to be. We wasted a *lot* of time there.
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. As you all know, the main problem with developing in the joyride builds have been ensuring its continued stability and usability for developers; Michael, I, and others have (as time has permitted!) been working on integrated automated testing to help address that issue -- joyride builds will not be released for general use unless they pass automated testing. I've put that work on hold while I try to finish up my update.1 feature set, but I hope to get back to it after code freeze. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel