On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 06:11:49PM -0500, Will Woods wrote: > > Yeah, I'm not sure I like the idea of a "freeze" without something > keeping people from violating it. the default build command being such that a package rebuild is not pushed to the freeze seems enough to me. With proper documentation and agreed guidelines that packages should be rebuilt using the special command that push then to the freeze only if really needed. > As Jesse pointed out, it's really > hard to keep freezes frozen. It makes testing awful when we don't > even get notified of proposed changes. Everyone is notified when packages are pushed. Why more? To help people watching releases, there could be a mail showing what was pushed to the freeze containing only that information (the mail showing what was pushed in extras is for all the releases). > How much churn do we actually expect after the freezes? Couldn't we > handle it with the combined Release Cabal and QA Team doing ACK/NACK > on proposed changes? Why not let the maintainers decide by themselves and let people blame on the lists where the build reports appear? -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
