1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C4E02AE89.8070009%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005950.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="005451.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C4E02AE89.8070009%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">andr55 at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Thu Jun 23 05:10:01 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005950.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005451.html">[Mageia-dev] about release cycle
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5951">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5951">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5951">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5951">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>sorry, I forgot to strip off everything at the beginning
... so if you could ignore the previous email
andre999 a écrit :
><i>
</I>><i> I'd like to consolidate and clarify my ideas regarding an amended freeze
</I>><i> process, taking into account the critiques.
</I>><i> That is, that for the freeze which leads to the release, that we
</I>><i> 1) freeze cauldron
</I>><i> 2) copy caudron to a pre-release branch, which remains frozen, and will
</I>><i> become the release
</I>><i> 3) then unfreeze cauldron.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> - this would be the first freeze, when the big focus starts on bug
</I>><i> fixes. The sequence of freeze types would not (necessarily) change.
</I>><i> - although cauldron would be unfrozen, the idea is to allow small
</I>><i> contributions, such as new packages, new versions not accepted into
</I>><i> pre-release, etc.
</I>><i> But not to have major changes which could break cauldron, as the main
</I>><i> contributors will be focused, as now, on pre-release, and major breaks
</I>><i> in cauldron should be quickly fixed.
</I>><i> So that cauldron would not be not totally blocked to all non-release
</I>><i> contributions during the freeze period (which was about 6 weeks for mga1).
</I>><i> - It would probably be very useful to have an explicit policy limiting
</I>><i> the nature of contributions to cauldron during the pre-release period.
</I>><i> We could even encourage the importing of new packages during this period.
</I>><i> - Caudron unfrozen would also allow less experienced packagers to
</I>><i> contribute to cauldron at times when they are unable to usefully
</I>><i> contribute to pre-release. For instance, such packagers could depend
</I>><i> heavily on the advice of others for bug fixes, but could be advanced
</I>><i> enough to import new packages or new versions to cauldron on their own.
</I>><i> (idea from comment on mageia1_postmortum wiki page.)
</I>><i> - This process assumes that the freeze period would be extended (by
</I>><i> maybe 2 weeks) to give more time to fix bugs, relieving some of the
</I>><i> pressure. Those less able to efficiently contribute to pre-release could
</I>><i> contribute to cauldron, so the extra time would be needed.
</I>><i> - If this amended process allows us to more easily make the release, and
</I>><i> thus keep the release cycle of 6 months, we would have the advantage of
</I>><i> keeping in sync with upstream for major projects such as kde and gnome.
</I>><i> But if not enough for keeping the 6-month release cycle, if it helps,
</I>><i> let's use it if we go with a longer cycle.
</I>><i> - In no way is the idea to produce parallel development streams as is
</I>><i> now done by mozilla for firefox.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Hopefully this summary helps.
</I>><i> (BTW, it is still Wednesday in my time zone.)
</I>><i> On the road to mga2 ... :)
</I>
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005950.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005451.html">[Mageia-dev] about release cycle
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5951">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5951">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5951">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5951">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
