On Tuesday 27 May 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > I mostly agree with you. However the changes for beta3 or rc1 are > small. We had a lot of larger changes in beta2 and that delayed all > the release work. > > The main work for beta3/rc1 would be the move to newer kernel but that > shouldn't be hard and we start that now. I don't see any point in doing an extra beta just for a kernel update. Dailies should be good enough to test with new kernels. > The reason why I said that we need to have testing images and all > review done before commiting is to always have the tree releasable and > to avoid messing it up ending delaying the release too much. I agree that makes some sense. It would be good to have at least bigger changes and changes that include string changes acked on the list before they are committed. The fact that developers can now use git-svn should make that a lot easier than it was in the past. I have one request though: when people post patches from git to the mailing list, please include them as *attachments* and not inline. That makes it a lot easier to apply them without whitespace issues. And please also mention what the SVN HEAD revision was on which the patches are based. > I'm really unsure if all the proposed new features will be ready in > time and I do expect we can make a release really soon. My top item in > TODO is to look at kernel-wedge but porters could start this work by > theirself and propose the patches. No, porters cannot start. We ALWAYS need to take care of any structural changes first, and there are a few this time. I've started looking at this earlier today.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.