On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:17:09PM -0500, Ed Szynaka wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:36:47PM -0500, Ed Szynaka wrote: > > How does this account for drastic changes to something like libc that > > might take weeks or months to shake out? > > Well say that there are 3 releases a year. That gives say 3 months for > devel. With a freeze scheduled to start at the beginning of the 4th > month and a stable release at the end of a month of freeze. I think > that even the most drastic changes can be worked out in the course of 4 > months. That assumes that the change is made at the beginning of the devel period. That never seems to happen. People *always* hold something until just before the freeze. > Now if something _can't_ be completed in that time frame just > postpone it until the next freeze. Once it's in, it seems to be really hard to remove/postpone it. If we change that, then releases will fall into place without discussions of arbitrary time cycles. If we don't change that, then the short cycles are no more enforcable than what we have now. Drawing up new plans without addressing the cultural issues behind this are a waste of time. (Does anyone remember pushing back the freeze because people wouldn't be able to work on it over the holidays? Does that seem like a good idea in hindsight?) -- Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpMebBzZRBx_.pgp
Description: PGP signature