On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:33:03PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:42:10PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > When we branch 2.3, this branch would be named "2.3.x", right? The > > > > slightly weird thing would be that the release manager would be in > > > > charge of the 2.3.x branch until 2.3.0 and then the stable branch > > > > > > 2.3.x is good for devs and less good for 2.3 because it gets less > > > attention. > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you give more details? Do you > > mean that if there is a "2.3.x" branch, devs might commit patches that > > could be a little risky for 2.3.0, where if there is instead a "2.3.0" > > branch, the name makes us be more careful about such patches? > > My understanding was that you propose to have master and 2.3.x which will > later become 2.3.0. People generally like more to develop new stuff rather > than focus on stabilizing the code, so having both master and 2.3.x > will divide attention and perhaps more to the favor of 2.3.x. > So if I was responsible for 2.3.0 I would try to fix 2.3.x==master as > long as possible ;) But not really my call now...
Ah I understand what you mean now. Thanks for explaining. > > > OTOH if the manager is sloppy with deadlines people get very frustrated > > > about > > > the freeze and that is not good either. > > > > +1 > > > > > Anyway I think that the manager should have major word in decisions like > > > this > > > because he will have the burden/responsibility for whatever decision is > > > taken. > > > > > > So let's get to the point: Are you willing to be release manager for 2.3? > > > > Yes. > > > > My main hesitation is that there are several parts of LyX's code where I > > am completely lost, and that's not a good quality of a release manager. > > And when we get to the stage where every commit requires careful review, > > I would need more help from others than a more experienced developer. I > > My take on this is that release manager responsibility is to set and publish > deadlines and push people who are responsible for their area of expertise > to fix or stabilize that in reasonable time. So it's more of understanding > whom to trust in which area rather than understanding the code. I see, that makes sense. > > So yes, I am willing to be the release manager, but I am also willing to > > have a more knowledgeable developer as the release manager if one > > volunteers. > > Easy. Is any other dev thinking about trying the release managment for 2.3? > We can wait couple days and see whether someone has feeling of doing it. Perfect. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
