On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 14:31 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 11:11 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I understand why rawhide should be frozen at some points, > > > Openly said, I don't understand this. To me, these freezes are a defect > > in Rel-Eng's procedures, which could easily be overcome, if they wanted > > to. > > What Rel-Eng wants is that the rawhide snapshot that Is To Be Fedora-<next> > gets beaten to a pulp by us rawhideans. Yes, I'd also like for the > rollercoaster ride to continue, but there is no way around that us crazy > bunch needs a little gentle leading to help out stabilize the next > release. Plus I can imagine that most (all?) developers are concentrating > on that job, so there are not many hands free to work of pushing the > envelope forward in any case. What I would like to see it Rel-Eng to adopt the development principles, most other developments apply: Decouple "product development" (here: FC<N+1>) development from bleeding edge "unstable/experimental" "head development" (here: rawhide). To achieve this, most projects first branch a "release branch" and work on this "release branch" to stabilize it before release/product deployment. I.e. instead of bringing "head development" and "maintenance of released products on hold" (aka. freezes), I'd recommend Rel-Eng to branch FC<N+1>. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
