Re: Freezing for 2.18

[Janek Warchoł]

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Ok folks, it is this time of the year again: I am trying to make myself
> unpopular.
>
> I want to see 2.18 soon.  That means we need to stabilize work that
> has already been done and cut down on experiments in the master branch.

I agree that we need some sort of freeze.

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I just put out the announcement because I feel we should now stop
>> accumulating stuff that will require half a year to reach a stable
>> state.  We need to focus on dealing with what we have in the queue
>> right now rather than heaving new things into master that will be
>> beneficial to end users only in a long time frame.
>
> Are you planning to split off 1.18 into a separate branch?  Or rather
> we the opposite, this is, collecting new developments in separate
> branches which get merged after 1.18 is out?  I would argue for the
> latter so that all developers do use the code (more or less) which
> eventually becomes the release...

I support the idea of splitting development into two separate branches.
I'm just now returning to my lyrics work, which will include
significant amount of "unstable/experimental" stuff.  I obviously
don't want to pause this work waiting for the next release. Therefore
i'm strongly opposed to freezing code in "let's just put experimental
stuff away for a moment and discuss only bugfixes" style.

best,
janek