Post-RC1 merging criteria (was Re: [PULL] cleanups)

[Dave Airlie]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:04:51PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
>> In my opinion, reducing the release schedule now would improve the throughput
>> of patches going in. Probably three months for the whole release would be
>> better with the majority of time being gates opened for merge window - two
>> months maybe?
>
> As I said before, I'm pretty concerned about this.  We have enough
> trouble supporting our stable releases as it is (though Peter's doing a
> fairly heroic job single-handedly holding up 1.8.x), and changing to
> three months just makes this worse.  What's a vendor supposed to do when
> they hit a bug in code shipped six months ago? That would be two major
> releases old under a three-month release schedule, so I have a hard time
> believing any of us would care.

Sadly its already happening with 1.8. DRI2 in 1.8 (i.e. our shipping
server) is not really in a greatly working state, Peter has only asked
for  someone to review it 3 or 4 times now.

When we release half-baked stuff into a final release, we really need
developers to try and maintain focus and help with fixing things
instead of following the shiny.

Also I'm not sure when Tiago thinks we are going to do stabilisation
or get people to write fixes, again its pure focus on the shiny, screw
making stuff work.

Like I'm stuck with doing 1.7 for a long time, and its already made me
realise how few issues are getting fixed relative to how many are
being introduced.

Dave.