{"thread":{"id":"22338","subject":"1.7.0 release plans","startedAt":"2010-01-22T08:08:54Z","lastAt":"2010-01-22T08:08:54Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"132386","messageId":"7vvdeuzhm1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"22338","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"1.7.0 release plans","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2010-01-22T08:08:54Z","receivedAt":"2010-01-22T08:08:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"As I've been repeating lately, I'd like to tag 1.7.0-rc0 this weekend.\n\nWe don't have any written, official-looking rules for patch acceptance\nduring the -rc period, and have been playing by ear.  The rule of thumb is\nthat if a patch is not in 'master' by the time 1.7.0-rc0 is tagged, it\nwon't be in 'master' until 1.7.0 final is released, unless it is:\n\n (1) a fix to a regression caused by changes since 1.6.6;\n (2) an obvious fix to a new feature we added since 1.6.6; or\n (3) an obvious fix to a problem we had even before 1.6.6.\n\nWhen you have a patch that adds yet another new feature that you think\ncomplements what we already added since 1.6.6, you could argue that the\npatch falls into the second category, by saying something like: \"the new\noption to do X is not complete without configuration variable that tells\ngit to do X by default, and another option to override the configuration\".\nWe need to discuss and judge if the the argument has merit, which would\nlargely depend on what that X is.  So the above list is not completely\nblack-and-white.\n\nWe'll cook 1.7.0-rc0 for a week or so, accumulating fixes and then tag rc1\nby the end of this month.  After that, only fixes in category (1) and\nperhaps really obvious ones in category (2) will be applied for rc2, which\nshould happen around Feb 10th.  I am hoping that we can cut the final\nrelease around mid February.\n\nI don't know if I have enough bandwidth to review and queue patches that\nfall outside of the above \"meant for 1.7.0\" criteria to 'next/pu' branches\nduring the feature freeze, but that doesn't mean I'd discourage people\nfrom working on their own topics meant for post-1.7.0 cycle. Hopefully we\nhave enough qualified people to help reviewing them.\n\nIn any case, I'll be moving my focus to the 'master' branch from now on,\nand I ask contributors to help hunting and fixing problems in 'master', so\nthat we can have a solid 1.7.0 release (on top of which you can build your\nfavorite shiny new toys ;-).\n\nThanks.\n"}]}