Re: Next upload 2012-06-26 (dpkg 1.16.5)
Hey Neil!
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 09:42:18 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 07:32:20AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I'm planning to upload dpkg 1.16.5 to unstable on the 26th, to be able
> > to finish cleaning up some pending changes I've locally and to give
> > some time for the initial wave of translation updates once I've sent
> > the call. Given that there's no exact date for the freeze yet, I'm not
> > sure if I'm on borrowed time, that's why I'm CCing the release team. I
> > could probably advance the upload by few days though.
> You are indeed on borrowed time :)
>
> Advancing that as much as you can would certainly be useful to catch any
> errors, and to ensure translators get a chance to contribute.
So, the upload happened few days later than planned, but still before
the freeze deadline. But because there were posterior uploads to fix
regressions, RC bugs and translation updates the automatic freeze
exception does not apply anymore.
The way I understood the freeze (as any feature freeze) was that code
with new features on unstable at the time of the freeze would go in
(JFTR there's been no new features added afterwards), even if they'd
require to review the subsequent changes and update the version in
the unblock. It could have happened that those regressions could have
been spotted instead after the version would have migrated to testing,
or regressions for the version in testing still be discovered, so I
don't see the big difference really.
It appears, from mails from some other release team members, the above
is not the case.
Just to clarify, because it might have seemed otherwise in my mail to
the unblock request, personally I don't have any problem per se with a
whole review of the diff between the version in testing and the one in
unstable. And even way way longer than usual delay in transitioning the
package from unstable, say at least one more month or more, to catch
any other possible regression if there's fear of that.
But then I don't think having to argue over every and each change
in 1.16.5, or having to prepare releases through t-p-u, with the
implication of needing to reissue a call for translators is a good
way of spending our collective time. And while it's not like we are
releasing immediately anyway, doing the above just implies more work
for everyone, which certainly does not help speeding up the release
process.
But then if you still disagree and require us to go through the stuff
in the above paragraphs, then I think I'll just take the blame for my
misunderstanding, notify translators they should stop bothering,
pofusely apologize to them, and very regretably leave the IMO worse
1.16.4.3 version for wheezy, and call it a day.
thanks,
guillem
Reply to: