[Reviewers] 4.3 delayed: should we unfreeze on 8/1 anyway?

[Yuya Nishihara]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:55:14 -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Sean Farley <sean at farley.io> wrote:
> >
> > Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> writes:
> >
> >>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 13:32, Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at google.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 31, 2017 10:09 AM, "Augie Fackler" <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:36, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> On Jul 31, 2017, at 08:13, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We need to hold 4.3 for a few days (possibly a week?) because of some security fixes and coordinating with other tools.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Should we unfreeze default on the first anyway, and cut the 4.3 release from stable once we've got the all-clear?
> >>> >
> >>> > Since we're actively trying to lower contribution friction and since freezes are harmful to that goal, my vote is to unfreeze as planned.
> >>>
> >>> Works for me.
> >>>
> >>> That works for me too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If anyone else has opinions (especially dissenting ones), please speak up today. Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Reasons against unfreezing seem like they would likely be related to the reasons we have a freeze. IIUC, the reason for the freeze is to force people (mostly mercurial developers) to test the release candidate and not the default branch. If that's right, I guess the question is whether we think the RC has been tested enough.
> >>
> >> *nods* Barring any objection, I'll announce the unfreeze-but-no-release-yet tomorrow AM America/New_York.
> >
> > Just to add: it's hard to test a secret, security rc :-)
> 
> The point was that unfreezing means there may be exciting new things
> on the default branch that will distract people from testing the RC
> more.

Testing the RC more wouldn't help much unless the secret can be disclosed or
new bug fixes are queued. So I'm fine with unfreezing.