Freeze for Test1 is in 2 weeks + 1 day

[Will Woods]

On Jan 8, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 22:50 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:26:59PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> 3) Create the Freeze Review Team
>>>
>>> This is a group of individuals that would monitor the tracking  
>>> bug and
>>> ACK or NACK the requests.  If ACKed, a package would be built and  
>>> pushed
>>> into the repo at that point.
>>
>> I don't think a Freeze Review Team is needed. I think the  
>> contributors
>> should use their best judgement on whether they build for the frozen
>> target or the rolling one, the default being the rolling one, of  
>> course.
>> Using a blocker bug to document why there was a version/package  
>> released
>> for the frozen target and leave a possibility to other  
>> contributors to
>> yell would be the recommended way, however. People interested in  
>> releases
>> could then be in CC of that blocker.
>
> I'd rather do it the other way.  There is going to be QA on-going  
> of the
> test releases and I want the test team (speak up Will) to _know_  
> what's
> being pushed in.

Yeah, I'm not sure I like the idea of a "freeze" without something  
keeping people from violating it. 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.

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?

Will we need to build something to keep track of proposals and acks?  
I think RHEL does this with the bugzilla flag stuff, which seems to  
drive everyone insane, so I'm hoping to avoid the Lovecraftian  
horrors therein..

-w