Re: Stable release state

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Werner LEMBERG" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Stable release state


> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > At present, we're actually premature in proposing a freeze to make
> > ready for a release candidate.  We have a number of outstanding
> > critical bugs and regressions which need fixing before we go anywhere
> > with a new stable release.  So, currently, step one is to reduce them
> > to zero.  Step 2 is to propose and agree a development freeze.
>
> Tackling step 1 and step 2 in this order was seminal for 2.16 taking a
> year longer than anticipated.
>
> --
> David Kastrup


In that case, we need to be more active in getting rid of criticals and 
regressions.  Are you proposing we ignore them?

--
Phil Holmes