Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:29:33 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, re@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc master.passwd Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020129102258.39099D-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20020129164006.B61992@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > If there has not been an announcement saying the tree has unfrozen, then > > it's still frozen. We've made the decision to keep the RELENG_4 branch > > frozen until the release is actually cut, so that we can keep RELENG_4 in > > sync if there are last minute commits to support the release effort. The > > RELENG_4_5_0_RELEASE tag should be considered mutable until the release > > itself is announced. Please back your commit out until you see an > > announcement to the contrary regarding the code freeze. > > I'm sorry about this and will back my change out in 30 minutes or > after I see the reply to the below (whatever happens earlier), but > could you please clarify something for me and others: > > 1. What was the point in creating RELENG_4_5 branch if RELENG_4 is > still frozen? I thought that creating RELENG_4_5 branch would > automatically unlock RELENG_4. At least, that's the feeling > I've got from reading releng.html, and this is the way it worked > before. RELENG_4_5 has diverged from RELENG_4 in specific ways: for example, the version numbers have been modified to reflect the fact of the impending release. However, we are currently priventing feature divergence of RELENG_4 and RELENG_4_5. Murray's post indicating the code freeze had started did not specify how it would end, but it also didn't say it would automatically unlock. My recollection of previous releases was that there was an explicit post when the lock ended. Obviously, this is something we should make more explicit. > 2. There were two simultaneous commits to the RELENG_4 and RELENG_4_5 > branches for gnu/usr.bin/groff/tmac/mdoc.local by murray, and only > RELENG_4_5 commit was marked as being ``Approved by: re'', in > support of my feeling. It probably should have said 'Approved by'. However, I have to admit wondering why Murray put in the Approved by given that he is the release engineer. :-) > 3. I saw multiple commits to the RELENG_4 branch of src/UPDATING by > imp without the ``Approved by: re'' bit that also support my > feeling. Warner has a standing exemption in this regard. He probably should have continued to put in the 'Approved by' text until the freeze was released. Obviously, some clarification regarding the end of the freeze is needed. Here it is: the current RE team considers a code freeze on the -STABLE branch to be in place until such time as it is officially ended by the release engineering team. Generally, this will come in the form of a post by the release engineer, although potentially it could come from another member of the team if the RE is indisposed for some reason. We should make it an explicit step in the release engineering time table for each release so that it's clear that's how it would work. Murray and I exchanged some e-mail on the topic of when the freeze should end, and concluded that it should continue as long as minor tweaks are filtering through the branches. That should end RSN. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020129102258.39099D-100000>