Re: Freezing for 2.18

[Janek Warchoł]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> You see me as "one person imposing a limit" because I brought up the
> issue of a stable release here.  But I did not bring up the issue out of
> spite and malice but because I realized that the kind of open-ended
> changes not leading to any release-related goal but rather to further
> open-ended changes that are currently on the table are incompatible with
> planning for a stable release in the near future.
>
> I think that a stable release in the near future is something that would
> be important, however.
>
> Naturally, it looks to you like I just bring up "stable release" as a
> last resort to sabotage your work: the timing is just _too_ suspicious.
> But the timing is no coincidence: it does not require an explicit
> decision to make a stable release or table it if the state of
> development is equally fine for making a stable release at any time.

Uh, i see a dangerous situation here.
David, i may be wrong, but i'm afraid it looks like you are assuming
that Mike thinks you are sabotaging his work.  I'm pretty sure that
Mike doesn't think you're sabotaging his work.
Please - for the sake of reducing misunderstandings - don't
guess/assume what others think about your decisions/proposals.
In other words: it seems to me that you perceive a conflict/resentment
where there is none.

> So I see us at a crossroads here: either we decide we want to have a
> stable release in a reasonable point of time in the near future, or we
> decide we don't want to plan for a stable release anytime soon.
>
> If we decide we want a stable release at some point in the foreseeable
> future, it means to stop adding destabilizing work to master and focus
> on stabilizing work instead.

Agreed.  Nevertheless, stabilizing master doesn't have to mean pausing
"unstable" work.  I think it can be done in a branch.

best,
Janek