Re: RFC: Release process amendment (was Re: Vetoing latest issue #3020 fix in 1.6.10)
From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:41:10 -0500
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:10 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
My statement was really meant to indicate that Paul and I were coordinating this effort, since today has been the planned day of a release for the last 2 weeks. It would be at least a little confusing if folks started yanking stuff from the branch on the day of a release *without* involving the RM.
But your point about folks choosing to -1 stuff after the fact is well taken. I don't see any circumstance in which the RM would intentionally stand in the way of somebody backing out a vetoed change.
> In fact, I would argue that we should never roll a release within so many
We actually have a bit of history in doing the opposite: a flurry of nominations, review, lobbying, voting, and merging just prior to the release. I'm a bit concerned that if we did implement a delay-release policy, it would degrade the quality of the release, or undesirably postpone releases.
The counter-argument, of course, is that we set the deadline not at the time of tag, but at the time of when the last merge can be performed. While possible, we may lack the discipline to *not* include a fix which receives its third vote shortly after this deadline, and for which there is significant community momentum. We could make exceptions, but once that happens, it's a slippery slope back to where we are today.
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.