Re: [Vote] Removing Woody / transition to maintenance

[Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> Tim Larson wrote:
> 
> >to let bug fixes (not new features) into the Woody block.
> 
> -1 Woody is write protected - either hard (permissions) or soft (by words).

To explain this more clearly, we are temporarily keeping the woody
block as a part of our deployed-base-friendly policies.  This is
motivated by the fact that Woody does have a deployed base, despite its
alpha designation, and like other deployed software (e.g. Cocon-2.0.*)
we should continue to support it for a resonable period.  This usually
means preserving the documentation, fixing minor bugs, and doing any
necessary security updates.  Anything less would (IMHO) be setting a
very poor precedent for our development and maintenance practices.

To summarize, I am changing my vote to:

-1 for locking woody via permissions or CVS (vote, not veto, of course)

+1 for freezing woody except for documentation clarification, security
   updates, and small bugfixes. (freeze via policy, not permissions)

--Tim Larson

Re: [Vote] Removing Woody / transition to maintenance

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Joerg Heinicke wrote:

> On 09.03.2004 19:48, Tim Larson wrote:
> 
>> To summarize, I am changing my vote to:
>>
>> -1 for locking woody via permissions or CVS (vote, not veto, of course)
>>
>> +1 for freezing woody except for documentation clarification, security
>>    updates, and small bugfixes. (freeze via policy, not permissions)
> 
> 
> I do not want to maintain two versions (even only for small bugfixes).

Me neither.

I say we incorporate changes IF and ONLY IF there is a major security 
hole in the woody block. Otherwise, it's is to be considered like the 
skin layer that a snake leaves behind when it grows.

-- 
Stefano.

Re: [Vote] Removing Woody / transition to maintenance

[Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>]

On 09.03.2004 19:48, Tim Larson wrote:

> To summarize, I am changing my vote to:
> 
> -1 for locking woody via permissions or CVS (vote, not veto, of course)
> 
> +1 for freezing woody except for documentation clarification, security
>    updates, and small bugfixes. (freeze via policy, not permissions)

I do not want to maintain two versions (even only for small bugfixes).

Joerg