Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > 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".
In short, we use common sense to throttle the flow of bug fixes, so we can get a release out of the door.
