Re: Freeze Goals -- WAS: September release
Considering the way frozen has been treated in the past, and the way we all
would LIKE it to be, perhaps we need to add a fourth classification called
"release candidate"? The freeze is for feature freeze, where no new packages
are added, but bugfixes are going in, and then a release candidate phase to
finish boot floppy/CD image issues? Seems that's what is being proposed here.
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:50:39 +0200
> From: Hartmut Koptein <Hartmut.Koptein@t-online.de>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Freeze Goals -- WAS: September release
> Resent-Date: 18 Jul 1999 14:50:59 -0000
> Resent-From: email@example.com
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> > > Yes, the decisions is that we do this _before_ we go to frozen. Not during
> > > the freeze time. I hope you understand why.
> > I don't see that it's possible to that right now. Let's say that package
> > X is a fairly new package with some pretty serious bugs. (It basically
> > doesn't work.) Under the current structure, we have unstable, frozen,
> > and stable. A broken package doesn't belong in stable, obviously, and we
> > should kick it out of frozen if it doesn't look like it's fixable before
> > release. But now you want to throw it out of unstable as well? We just
> > don't have a mechanism for doing that. If you want to make a proposal,
> > great. But I don't think that's something we can do this freeze.
> Such packages goes directly from unstable to the new unstable (if we cannot
> fix it). The point is: we knew these packages before we go to frozen, we
> shouldn't do this during frozen.
> Frozen is for the porters, autobuilders, boot-floppies and cd-image teams.
> Not for fixing bugs.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com