Norbert Thiebaud wrote (26-06-11 01:16)
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Cor Nouws<oolst@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
Therefore I argue that it would not be fair
to decide on 7 weeks from the deadline, that it is shortened by 3 or 4
weeks.
Sure, but delaying the Release Date by 3 or 4 weeks will not be fair
to downstream either
Indeed. Therefore, if we decide that we need some more QA time between
"Hard feature freezed & branched libreoffice-3-5 " (and I expect that we
will come to that conclusion), then that time must be picked in front,
and in time.
The calendar was worked out by picking a Release date that would work
for downstream - RedHat, Canonical, Suse,... - and then working our
way backward to a 'freeze date'. the consequence of a major downstream
not being able to pick-up a release of ours is much more important, in
my opinion, than a given feature being pushed to the next release.
Fully agree.
Cheers,
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
Context
- Re: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech steering call ... (continued)
Re: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech steering call ... · Cor Nouws
[Libreoffice] [cairo] minutes of tech steering call · Caolán McNamara
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.