On 6 September 2016 at 13:40, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
Exactly. The question I was asking above can be rephrased as "if we apply that throttling more strictly and sooner, would we get a release faster?". -- PMM
