On 11/1/07, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Once we hit the target of 100 open PRs,( or whenever we would have > > originally cut a stage 3 release branch), we firm up stage 3 so that > > *really* only bugfixes go in. Then we work toward a release > > candidate, etc etc.? > > I guess. This is the part that is less certain to me. There is less > consensus here, in that Richard and I are advocating a strict > time-based release schedule once the < 100 PR bit is flipped, with > staggered RCs. (Richard, I hope this generalized summary is accurate.)
No, I was suggesting a more "when we think it's ready" approach (so, leave it basically unspecified). Of course we have the usual indicators of the number of regressions against previous releases and the number of P1 bugs. I don't think there should be any automatism at the point we reach <100 regressions. Rather for example once that happens, going over the remaining regressions and deciding which ones we want to fix before the release and doing so. Of course at some point a RC is warranted, as only that might be tested by some more obscure targets. > Jason and Mark seem to be less impressed with this specific part. I'd agree with them. Richard.
