2.0.3?

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Tyler <gordon at doxxx.net> writes:

    Gordon> On 12/13/2009 11:30 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
    >> It seem to me the biggest problem with releases is getting the
    >> announcement out.  I think this time we should aim to just do it two
    >> days (?) after the source freeze, whether binaries are ready or not.
    >> I think we discussed such a policy before but have not yet put it into
    >> practice.  It might stop it dragging on.

    Gordon> I realize that the people who build the installers
    Gordon> don't have a lot of spare time, but for the majority
    Gordon> of bzr users the release is the binary installer. To
    Gordon> my mind, there's no point in announcing bzr 2.0.3
    Gordon> unless the binary installers are ready.

Yeah, that has been discussed at length (but you may not have
been around at that time or may be missed the relevant threads).

Long story short: we tried delaying the announce until the
installers were available, the main effect was to delay the
release.

So Martin is proposing to shorten the delay instead relying on
the fact that people *generally* understand that the installers
will come shortly after that.


    >> In looking at the trunk bug fix section, I see a fair number of things
    >> that, at least looking at the description, really are genuine bug
    >> fixes (as opposed to performance or testing) and that could qualify
    >> for 2.0.  I wonder why they weren't proposed for it?  Like the
    >> following:

    Gordon> For the most part, I'm still learning and uncertain
    Gordon> whether something should be proposed for trunk or
    Gordon> 2.0.x. I think I was expecting the patch pilot and/or
    Gordon> other core members to decide that.

You did well, no worries.


    >> * ``bzr ignore /`` no longer causes an IndexError. (Gorder Tyler, #456036)

    Gordon> Simple fix, should be safe.

    >> * ``bzr mv --quiet`` really is quiet now.  (Gordon Tyler, #271790)

    Gordon> Ditto.

    >> * ``bzr serve --quiet`` really is quiet now.  (Gordon Tyler, #252834)

    Gordon> Ditto.

I agree with that, but the rules for the SRU (AIUI) requires an
higher gravity in addition to the low risk.

    >> I think there is some risk developers and active users
    >> will be on trunk or betas and therefore not motivated to
    >> merge to 2.0.x.  We should probably ask for bug fixes into
    >> 2.0.  I don't feel strongly inclined to go back and
    >> cherrypick things without being requested to.

    Gordon> What's the process for getting something merged into
    Gordon> trunk that had already been merged into 2.0.x?

Wait, relax, look at the Release Manager do the hard work of
merging the stable branch into the trunk :)

This has not occured recently but when there is activity on the
stable branches anybody is allowed to merge stable branches to
bzr.dev (anybody with pqm access that is).

        Vincent