>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:42:57AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:09 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:16:53AM -0700, Bernard Li wrote: >> >> >> >> But Carlo could probably create a snapshot for >> >> testing purposes and we'll sync up on Wednesday to determine what else >> >> needs to be done. >> > >> > since we are already Monday, will release an unofficial package for 3.1.1 >> > then with the wrong release name so at least we could get some binary >> > packages done and some basic testing going before Wednesday when the >> > official release (which will only change by that name most likely) will be >> > released. >> >> Why put ourselves through all of that extra work. > > Well, it is not wasted work anyway, as that will at least allow packagers to > fine tune their build scripts and have maybe some packages ready to begin > testing when the official pre-release is launched as explained before. > > Indeed I'd had already found a couple of bugs myself by going through the > proposed questionnaire : > > * new ChangeLog generation is broken at least in CentOS 4.6 > * `gmond -r` generates a broken configuration for 3.1 so people migrating > from 2.5.7 (all those OpenSuSE and Debian guys) will have a harder time > upgrading than usual. > > Agree though that it can be confusing (since there will be then 2 packages > with the same version name) and is not what we had documented should happen > as part of our release process either; but was suggested by our release > manager and had happened as part of the release cycle for 3.1.0 as well so > it shouldn't be that much of a surprise to everyone involved. > >> Since both myself and Bernard are out of the office until Wed., >> let's just wait until then to get things going. > > If you both were planning to be out until Wed, why enforce a freeze and stop > all backporting and development efforts since Friday then? > > If we can spare almost a full week of development why is it so hard to > convince everyone else that we should spare one extra week for testing? >
Nobody is imposing a freeze. A freeze is implied by the RTC rules and voting. If things need to be backported and there are votes (ie. enough people believe that the backport should happen), then a backport could happen right up to the time that tag is actually made. That is the reason for the RTC rules. That was also the reason for my original email asking if there were any other backports before we tag. For the issues that you mentioned above, fix the issue, propose a backport and if you get the votes (ie. others believe that the patch should be included), then backport the patch. No problem. This is the reason for implementing RTC in the first place. So that we cover all of the bases without having to add extra overhead or procedure. Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
