On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 12:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >>Dude, the freeze policy is pretty understandable. > >> > >> > >Did you see a formal code freeze announcement? I haven't. > > > > > The Fedora Core test3 include a freeze announcement. Refer to the > following links > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-February/msg00059.html > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/ReleaseFreezeProcess > > > > > > >>That said, I do understand that freezes cause frustration. If you > >>look on the linux-kernel mailing list, you'll see the ongoing tension > >>between release management and getting patches in. > >> > >> > >I am familiar with code freezes and don't argue on their necessity. > > > >But if a bug prevents function after a code freeze, it qualifies as > >"release critical"/"must fix" and showstopper. > > > > > The spec cleanup that has been proposed doesnt count as a release > critical or must fix bug since it doesnt prevent any critical functionality. The bug Mr.Harris had been trying to fix by changing the arch had broken all 64 bit archs. Now he introduced what he believes to be fix, ... and I consider to be yet another bug. > >However, this shouldn't prevent maintainers from providing proper > fixes, > >and doesn't justify adding semi-cooked, semi-sought-out emergency > hacks > >into packages. > Since the cleanup isnt critical, Mr. Harris's change is critical and also needs to be tested. In short, I say: The bug Mr. Harris is trying to fix is critical, the way he did leaves much to be desired, the way reacted on my remark doesn't leave many questions open on his attitude. EOT - I am fed up. Ralf -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list