On 6 September 2016 at 11:33, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 05.09.2016 um 13:10 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: >> ie if we were stricter about "no commits unless they're fixes for >> regressions, fixes for things new in this release or security fixes", >> would this reduce the number of commits we do post-freeze much? > > I don't think we should leave a bug intentionally unfixed even though > there is a patch, just because it was already broken in the last > release.
We already do (informally) once we're a way into the hard freeze. Bug reports (and fixes for them) arrive all the time, and at a rate such that if we allowed any bug fix into the tree during freeze we would never have a period of a week without new bugfixes going in that allowed us to actually release. If a bug went unnoticed and unfixed for almost the whole release cycle, this is a good sign that it's actually not all that prominent to users; so it's a reasonably good, objective, and easy to apply metric for restricting bug fixes to "only important bug fixes". thanks -- PMM
