I think we didn't had a "bug fixes only" stage yet on 0.100 cycle, then does not have too much sense jump to "regressions only", right?
Gonzalo On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > hard code freeze is way more strict than "bug fixes only", that's more a > feature freeze. > > In code freeze only very critical stuff is supposed to land. The double > approval is in addition to the review, to ensure only essential fixes lands. > > Just want to be clear what we would be buying into :) > > > > On 2 September 2013 20:41, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: >> >> Yes. Only fixes allowed, we can discuss if double review is needed or not. >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't >> > find >> > a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate. >> > >> > Hard Code Freeze >> > >> > This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could >> > risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No >> > source >> > code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, >> > but >> > translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, >> > of >> > course, allowed without asking. >> > >> > On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that >> >> should facilitate testing. >> >> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is >> >> aligned >> >> with Fedora and other projects. >> >> >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> >> > >> >> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide >> >> > what >> >> > to do. >> >> > >> >> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every >> >> > four >> >> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This >> >> > is >> >> > not >> >> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather >> >> > delay >> >> > than release something we can't be proud of. >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Sugar-devel mailing list >> >> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> >> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Narvaez > > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel