Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 13:11, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Jan 25.-27. bug squashing party in preparation of the freeze
>
> Feb 1. freeze; start of the first bug squashing cycle
> every upload to frozen must be approved by the release manager
>
> Feb 15. start of the second bug squashing cycle
>
> Mar 1. start of the third bug squashing cycle;
> only fixes for RC bugs are allowed after this date
>
> June estimated release date for 3.0r0
What do you feel is the advantage of this scheme?
As far as I can tell, the problem we have isn't so much that new, buggy
versions of supposedly-frozen packages are leaking into testing; more
that RC bugs against packages already in testing are just not getting
fixed in a timely manner. So the choices are:
1) Pull the affected packages out of testing, and move forward without
them. This probably isn't appropriate for packages in base, which are
the ones causing us trouble right now, but seems like the right way to
deal with "extra" and "optional" priorities.
2) Make some best-effort attempt to fix the bugs, but don't allow them
to hold up the release; just ship the buggy packages if that's all we've
got.
3) Delay the release in hopes that the bugs will get fixed.
So far we've been doing (3), with perhaps limited success. If you feel
that (2) is more appropriate, you can get this effect by liaising with
maintainers and bug submitters to downgrade bug severities in some
suitable fashion.
p.
Reply to: