Re: 22.0 Release Status: Important news

mb> Of course you misunderstood me. I didn't mean shipping on mb> Feb. 1, I mean seeing what we have on Feb. 1 and shpping THAT. OK. If you add a bit of wishing for miracles, that's exactly what I've been planning to do. Sorry if I haven't been clear. mb> Later. In practice we would intend to ship March 1, but in mb> fact ship April 1 -- business as usual. Uh-uh. No flexibility. We decided not to go there, remember? Nope. No way, no how. If we aren't looking like we're going to be able to ship on March 1, I will fall on my sword in whatever seems the most honorable way. I cannot promise to continue actively managing much past April 1. If Vin looks at what we've got on March 1 and says he "can't imagine it being acceptable as stable before June and without major rewrites," I think we will probably have to abort the release. Yes, I am aware that probably means that neither GTK nor Mule/NT will get in if we take a realistic look at their state on decision day. We'll see what things look like on Feb. 1. mb> If you really want me to do the CVS work, I'll start on it mb> now, but I prefer "wait and see" wrt a new branch. I think everybody would be much happier if we all know ahead of time what the technical details and risks are. I know I would be. I see a lot of potential for this to completely break CVS for a week; I don't see any expendable weeks between now and April 15. mb> We shouldn't have repeated CVS churn, so whenever we create a mb> new branch for the new stable version, we should also move mb> development to the trunk. My desiderata for the CVS move are (1) The current devel branch stays a tagged branch and does not become trunk until after the stable branch is created. (2) The "gamma" release will involve a branch off the current devel branch and new tags. The only code change relative to the beta current at that time will be version information. (3) Minimal risk[1] to Vin's ability to work on 21.1 "same as it ever was" until he accepts the "gamma" code as stable. We'll need to ask Vin, but I imagine he would consider it acceptable if he had to use a tag, as long as it doesn't impact his ability to access CVS history and status etc. Ie, the new devel branch takes _all_ the impact of any "CVS churn." I think that is "obviously" the right thing. Even if it means waiting until May to move the devel branch to the trunk. Even if it means extra CVS churn. Comments? Footnotes: [1] Since 21.1 is currently the trunk, "no risk" is obviously not possible. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."