[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

[andre999]

sorry, I forgot to strip off everything at the beginning
... so if you could ignore the previous email

andre999 a écrit :
>
> I'd like to consolidate and clarify my ideas regarding an amended freeze
> process, taking into account the critiques.
> That is, that for the freeze which leads to the release, that we
> 1) freeze cauldron
> 2) copy caudron to a pre-release branch, which remains frozen, and will
> become the release
> 3) then unfreeze cauldron.
>
> - this would be the first freeze, when the big focus starts on bug
> fixes. The sequence of freeze types would not (necessarily) change.
> - although cauldron would be unfrozen, the idea is to allow small
> contributions, such as new packages, new versions not accepted into
> pre-release, etc.
> But not to have major changes which could break cauldron, as the main
> contributors will be focused, as now, on pre-release, and major breaks
> in cauldron should be quickly fixed.
> So that cauldron would not be not totally blocked to all non-release
> contributions during the freeze period (which was about 6 weeks for mga1).
> - It would probably be very useful to have an explicit policy limiting
> the nature of contributions to cauldron during the pre-release period.
> We could even encourage the importing of new packages during this period.
> - Caudron unfrozen would also allow less experienced packagers to
> contribute to cauldron at times when they are unable to usefully
> contribute to pre-release. For instance, such packagers could depend
> heavily on the advice of others for bug fixes, but could be advanced
> enough to import new packages or new versions to cauldron on their own.
> (idea from comment on mageia1_postmortum wiki page.)
> - This process assumes that the freeze period would be extended (by
> maybe 2 weeks) to give more time to fix bugs, relieving some of the
> pressure. Those less able to efficiently contribute to pre-release could
> contribute to cauldron, so the extra time would be needed.
> - If this amended process allows us to more easily make the release, and
> thus keep the release cycle of 6 months, we would have the advantage of
> keeping in sync with upstream for major projects such as kde and gnome.
> But if not enough for keeping the 6-month release cycle, if it helps,
> let's use it if we go with a longer cycle.
> - In no way is the idea to produce parallel development streams as is
> now done by mozilla for firefox.
>
> Hopefully this summary helps.
> (BTW, it is still Wednesday in my time zone.)
> On the road to mga2 ... :)


-- 
André