Hi, On 2/20/07, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and with all this crap said, I'm ok either way. Not trying to convince anyone, I just thought that we should provide our users with the same "delay"-courtesy that we would expect a reporting body to provide for us
I didn't pick this up before. What do you mean? That we cut a release that includes the fix, but not announce the fix in the release notes until a while later? Or that we let downstream packagers like RedHat know before we cut a binary release? Or both? I suppose either or both could be OK... I don't think we disagree on much. We agree we should resolve these issues as fast as possible, with as much coordination as possible with both those people reporting the issues and those downstream (our users and (re)packagers) as possible to eliminate bad surprises. The fix has to be in SVN first, by definition, before any release is cut, and then I think we agree a release including the fix should be cut as fast as possible. I think we agree on all this, and only the issue of the release being voted as stable before public announcement, which is a fairly minor point in this whole process, is up for debated. Yoav --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
