I think that in general continuing to push items in unstable is a nice 
process. Now we will have to pay attention to know how to proceed for 
3.8. So let me know how this could work. Should we stop pushing items 
in unstable while people are fixing 3.8?
Stef

On 13 oct. 04, at 07:33, Doug Way wrote:

>
> Technically, there was a 3-week wait for an answer to Marcus' question 
> on Sept 19 as to whether anyone wanted to step up to handle an 
> m17n-only release, and Andreas offered on Oct 6.  (Still a long wait, 
> but not as bad as 2 months.)
>
> Before that, there was semi-consensus that 3.8 would be mostly just a 
> short m17n release (with maybe a small number of extra things).  Then 
> during September, the active harvesters at the time (Stephane, Marcus 
> and to a lesser extent myself) decided an m17n-only release wasn't 
> worth the effort if we had to manage it ourselves, and started to add 
> more non-m17n stuff to 3.8, and Marcus asked the question on the list.
>
> So IMHO the m17n-only 3.8 release proposal sounds reasonable, since 
> that group would manage it.  In theory, it should not affect the 
> schedule we originally had for the bigger release which includes the 
> Squeakland updates, except that release will be called 3.9 instead of 
> 3.8.
>
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
>
>> Who will work on 3.8 release and when?
>
> Andreas/Ned/Yoshiki and others would control the 3.8 update stream.  
> It sounds like they want to get it released very soon.
>
>> And who will work on 3.9 release and when?
>
> Same people that were working on 3.8 last month.  (Mostly yourself and 
> Stephane and Marcus.)  I'm guessing the content will be what Stephane 
> suggested in his 9/28 "plan for 3.8" post, sounds like it would be 
> ready by the end of the year. (which does seem a bit quick after 3.8 
> but that's okay)
>
> (Hopefully there will not be too many write conflicts with the 
> updates.list file on the updates server... that's where hand-editing 
> the file can be a bit dangerous. ;) )
>
> - Doug
>
>
>>
>> If we spent 2 months just waiting for answers, how is supposed we can
>> agree on any schedule?
>>
>> We can just rearrange the everybody's schedules based on the demand of
>> one part of the community.
>>
>> -- Diego
>>
>>> ok so this would mean
>>>
>>> 	3.8 for 25 of November
>>> 		beta 15 of october
>>> 	3.9 for 15 of December
>>> 		beta 15 of november
>>>
>>> Do am I correct?
>>>
>>> Andreas I discussed a lot with marcus and others and I think that the
>>> communication should be improved.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>> On 10 oct. 04, at 23:11, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marcus,
>>>>
>>>>> So how do we resolve this? It would be nice to have a
>>>>> solution that would be good for everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only solution I see is to do two releases with one
>>>>> "customer" each: a fast 3.8 for squeakland, and directly
>>>>> after that a 3.9 in the timeframe that we defined for 3.9.
>>>>> 3.9 would be the "smallland" sync release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would that be possible? would anybody be Ok with that?
>>>>
>>>> I think from our point of view this would be a good solution.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>
>