On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Planning to violate the release schedule is not encouraged. > > > No, but let's be realist. The woody release schedule was also announced in a > > hurry (of the no info for month, and then we freeze tomorrow), and then we > > waited almost three month without news for the security infrastructure. > > Given that the security infrastructure has now been implemented, I fail > to see the comparison here. It is always possible that unforeseen > problems will delay the release -- but unforeseen problems from one > release are by no means a predictor for future releases.
What about the >200 RC bugs ? > > Also, reading the mail announcing a freeze on august 2 today is not exactly > > helpfull, is it ? If it would have been a week or two delay between the base > > freeze and the rest of the freeze, then ok, but 2 days ? > > I wonder if you haven't misread the email. The time between the base > freeze and the freeze of the rest of the archive is 22 days. What's > freezing on August 2 is base; this part of the freeze has been pushed > back to allow further pending RC bugfixes in. base + standard i think, but i did miss the date for the rest of the stuff. This would be august 24 or so ? This is the date that the packages are in testing, or would unstable->testing migration still be allowed after that ? Friendly, Sven Luther
