Karl Fogel wrote:
> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>> Oh, I totally agree, but this is more a question of logistics and not
>> one of "let's hold the release for this one last patch". From a
>> pragmatic point-of-view, if the actually testing and signing will be
>> held up by some quasi-foreseeable event, we might as well postpone
>> rolling the tarball. This has the serendipitous consequence that it
>> gives reviewers more time, and hence more stuff gets into the release.
>
> I do think the Wednesday that OSCON opens is a bit close, for some of us
> anyway :-). I'd love to see a few more days to review, but if it has to
> be Wednesday, then Wednesday it is. The important thing is to keep the
> release buses coming, so there'll be another one along any moment now.
On a related note, I won't be rolling until the r32164 group has been merged,
since it fixes a known test failure the python bindings. It seems
counterproductive to roll a tarball with known test failures.
Also, there are some issues merging r32023 to 1.5.x, primarily because it makes
changes to a file which doesn't exist on the branch. Could somebody with more
knowledge of that change either: 1) Do the merge, or 2) create a backport branch
for the change?
Thanks,
-Hyrum
Received on 2008-07-22 16:13:04 CEST