On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 00:38 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > Hello, > > > >Although you have listed it as "stage 2", I wish to commit the finished > > >portion as soon as possible during stage 1. I have maintainership > > >authority > > >to do so. This will not interfere in any way with *any* of the projects > > >approved for stage 1, since it is in a disjoint section of code. > > > > If it breaks bootstrap, it will definitely interfere. If it causes > > patch conflicts with other changes it will also interfere. And if it > > doesn't cause any patch conflicts, then it probably won't be very hard > > to maintain on a branch. > > > > > Accordingly, I plan to do so unless I am told not to. > > > > I would certainly prefer that you hold off until Stage 2, as indicated > > by the documented I posted. > > I must admit I have very bad feeling about the whole "4.1 Projects" > stuff. IMHO this over-organizes things. If people in general disagree > with the Nathan's changes, or if there are any reasons to think that > they are not tested enough or whatever when he submits them, of course > that is something else. But I don't think having just a single person > decide which patches may go in and which must wait, or even just judging > their importance, is a good idea.
In stark contrast, i believe it is a very good idea for us to be "over organized" about this. As for judging importance, the release manager has always judged what is important for a given release, based on general goals. A general ordering of projects people are working on, in order to reduce merge problems and difficulty, does not seem like "over organizing" to me. What is the big rush? --Dan
