On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:55:22PM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Of course the release manager should have the last say and as the
> release manager it's totally valid for Andreas to delete the branch.
> Apologies for taking initiative. I was really just trying to unstick
> Paul and get things r
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:07 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > I don't know if those bugs should prevent a beta or not. But there
> > needs to be some criteria other than feature completeness.
>
> To create the branch or a beta release? I rea
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I don't know if those bugs should prevent a beta or not. But there
> needs to be some criteria other than feature completeness.
To create the branch or a beta release? I realize there's a desire to
tie these acts together but still don't ful
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 14:55 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
...
> Also, it sounds as if there's an argument being made that *everyone*
> should pitch in to get 2.9 beta out the door *instead* of committing
> Zope 2 feature work and the delaye
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 15:20 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 21:07 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > Branches aka new features should be merged into the
> > HEAD if they are considered to be stable. The reason for this approach but
> > be to have the HEAD in a reasonable stable
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 12:38 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > Stephan Richter wrote:
> > > On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > >
> > >>Chris McDonough wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I suspect there's just some miscommunication about
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 21:07 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> Branches aka new features should be merged into the
> HEAD if they are considered to be stable. The reason for this approach but
> be to have the HEAD in a reasonable stable state and to be able to cut a
> release branch at any time.
Yup
--On 13. November 2005 14:55:22 -0500 Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But I'd like to understand the rationale for not branching at the time
if the feature freeze (Nov 1). Is it just to avoid the work of merging
changes from the branch back the HEAD during the period between th
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
> --On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I appreciate that you were trying to help.
> > I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
> >
> >
>
> svn delete should solve that problem
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> > On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
> >>Chris McDonough wrote:
> >>
> >>>I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
> >>>supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahea
--On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris,
I appreciate that you were trying to help.
I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
svn delete should solve that problem :-)
-aj
pgpwMOGS2dLXV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
> > I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
> > supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
> >
> > But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
>
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
I wish you hadn't done that. We shouldn't be making the branch unt
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch by now,
but I don't see one. Is the trunk totally frozen n
--On 12. November 2005 14:56:45 -0500 Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch
Yep, it's a free-for-all again. ;-) Although probably it's better to
create a branch and get some consensus before merging it as opposed to
landing stuff directly on the trunk.
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 22:14 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:59:45PM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:59:45PM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
> I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
> supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
>
> But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
Which means I can no
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
- C
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 14:56 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
> Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch by now,
but I don't see one. Is the trunk totally frozen now or what?
Is it too
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1. No new features for the November releases should
be added after October 31. The Zope trunks should be stable and ready for a
beta
release on November 1.
We are committed to time-based releases
21 matches
Mail list logo
