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

[Sean Farley]

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 :-) I'm fine with
unfreezing, too (but will probably be focused on testing the stable
stuff with our products internally).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-reviewers/attachments/20170731/89cfbc6c/attachment.asc>