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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
