Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... and I don't quite follow why no one else is having the same issue. > If there's a bug, and it's reproducable, then it should be fixed. I > don't care if it's trivial (ie: a print statement is wrong) or > critical (ie: it eats your children), it should be in a ticket, in the > 3.0.0 queue, and it should be fixed.
And most of them will get fixed. > My reading of your message was "any bug that's not critical gets put > on hold for 3.0.1", which is unacceptable to me. If I misread, let me > know. My message said "keep non-critical bugs decoupled from the release schedule". Non-critical bugs can still be in the queue and we *should* try to fix them as early as possible. > This does not preclude us from doing a pre-release, and mass-checks, > etc, but I don't want to not fix a bug for sake of getting the final > release out. Bear in mind that 3 committers must +1 a final release before it goes out the door (note: there are no vetos and a majority is not required for shipping a release). I doubt that would happen for any final release with any significant issues. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
