Re: FREEZE RESCHEDULED
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:05:55AM +0000, Mike Goldman wrote:
> Kevin Dalley wrote:
>
> > When frozen is created, we always have frozen and unstable in
> > parallel. In fact, we must always have them in parallel, if we allow
> > new uploads. Having two branches allows people to either fix bugs or
> > release new unstable releases, according to their preferences. A
> > person with no bugs shouldn't be prohibited from uploading new
> > releases.
>
> I do not believe that this was the case with hamm and slink. I believe it
> *should* be the case, but IIRC there were no unstable uploads allowed
> during the freeze, only release critical bug fixes to packages in frozen
> were permitted until the release.
Actually there is always an unstable after the freeze branch is put in
place. The only restriction on uploads is the ones to frozen. And I am of
the opionion that this is the problem. Too many people ignore frozen once
it's created, since they can only do the "neat" uploads to unstable. Thus
they don't want to handle two set's of packages and keep the differences
merged, so they continue to upload only to unstable.
But, I have had my rants about this in the past, and it seems people are
more concerned with having new and exciting packages, than making
frozen a complete and bug free release (just think what would happen if at
freeze, every maintainer fixed all the bugs in their own packages, barring
wishlist items, wouldn't that be neat). The ones who didn't have bugs
could a) help with documentation or boot disks if they desired, or b)
start working locally with new packages and new versions, taking the time
to test new things, or c) do nothing and relish the bug freeness of their
packages, and enjoy the time off they deserve.
Ben
Reply to: