<div dir="ltr">We have been in feature freeze, which seems the closest to what you call "bug fixes only", since 31 July. (I would not define hard code freeze as "regressions only", even though being a regression is of course part of what needs to be considered when deciding if landing a change or not). </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On 2 September 2013 20:52, Gonzalo Odiard <<a href="mailto:gonzalo@laptop.org" target="_blank">gonzalo@laptop.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think we didn't had a "bug fixes only" stage yet on 0.100 cycle, then does not have too much sense jump to "regressions only", right? Gonzalo <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > Hi, > > hard code freeze is way more strict than "bug fixes only", that's more a > feature freeze. > > In code freeze only very critical stuff is supposed to land. The double > approval is in addition to the review, to ensure only essential fixes lands. > > Just want to be clear what we would be buying into :) > > > > On 2 September 2013 20:41, Gonzalo Odiard <<a href="mailto:gonzalo@laptop.org">gonzalo@laptop.org</a>> wrote: >> >> Yes. Only fixes allowed, we can discuss if double review is needed or not. >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> >> wrote: >> > To be clear, are you saying we should code freeze tomorrow? I couldn't >> > find >> > a definition of the freeze in the wiki but the GNOME one seems accurate. >> > >> > Hard Code Freeze >> > >> > This is a late freeze to avoids sudden last-minute accidents which could >> > risk the stability that should have been reached at this point. No >> > source >> > code changes are allowed without two approvals from the release team, >> > but >> > translation and documentation should continue. Simple build fixes are, >> > of >> > course, allowed without asking. >> > >> > On 2 September 2013 20:29, Gonzalo Odiard <<a href="mailto:gonzalo@laptop.org">gonzalo@laptop.org</a>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Release 0.99.3 as is is good, because we will have rpms and that >> >> should facilitate testing. >> >> I prefer we try hard to follow the schedule, remember usually is >> >> aligned >> >> with Fedora and other projects. >> >> >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> >> > >> >> > 0.99.3 is due tomorrow and with it the code freeze. We need to decide >> >> > what >> >> > to do. >> >> > >> >> > I propose we don't freeze and instead we keep releasing 0.99.x every >> >> > four >> >> > weeks, until we feel we have done enough testing and bug fixing. This >> >> > is >> >> > not >> >> > what you are supposed to do with time based releases but I'd rather >> >> > delay >> >> > than release something we can't be proud of. >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Sugar-devel mailing list >> >> > <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> >> >> > <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Narvaez > > > > > -- > Daniel Narvaez </div></div></blockquote></div> -- Daniel Narvaez </div>