Post-RC1 merging criteria (was Re: [PULL] cleanups)

Daniel Stone daniel at
Mon Jun 21 06:56:45 PDT 2010


On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:04:51PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> In my opinion, reducing the release schedule now would improve the throughput
> of patches going in. Probably three months for the whole release would be
> better with the majority of time being gates opened for merge window - two
> months maybe?

As I said before, I'm pretty concerned about this.  We have enough
trouble supporting our stable releases as it is (though Peter's doing a
fairly heroic job single-handedly holding up 1.8.x), and changing to
three months just makes this worse.  What's a vendor supposed to do when
they hit a bug in code shipped six months ago? That would be two major
releases old under a three-month release schedule, so I have a hard time
believing any of us would care.

The only reason the kernel can get away with it is because all of their
downstreams have actual developers, not just packagers.  That would be
very nice indeed if that was the case for us, but we have downstreams
like Ubuntu, so.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list