<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/19/2014 05:24 PM, Stephen J.
Turnbull wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:87a9dmwp8f.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Nick Coghlan writes:
> A "user beware, this may be rebased without warning" clone would be
> fine for that purpose, and I suspect in most cases just running rc2
> -> final with such a clone available (preserving Larry's current
> workflow until rc2) would be sufficient to address most concerns.
Larry's already providing tarballs as I understand it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yep. Well, just "tarball" so far ;-)<br>
<br>
As for a "user beware" clone: I worry about providing anything that
looks/tastes/smells like a repo. Someone could still inadvertently
push those revisions back to trunk, and then we'd have a real mess
on our hands. Publishing tarballs drops the possibility down to
about zero.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:87a9dmwp8f.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The conflict here is not Larry's
process, it's the decision to make an ambitious release on a short
time schedule. I sympathize with Ubuntu to some extent -- they have a
business to run, after all. But should Ubuntu desires be distorting a
volunteer RE's process? Was Larry told that commercial interests
should be respected in designing his process?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I haven't seen anything that makes me think we're in trouble. Every
release has its bumps; that's what the rc period is for. I remind
you we're still a month away.<br>
<br>
I grant you asyncio is still evolving surprisingly rapidly for an
rc. But it doesn't have an installed base yet, and it's provisional
anyway, so it's not making me anxious.<br>
<br>
Worst case, we issue a 3.4.1 on a very accelerated schedule. But it
doesn't seem like it'll be necessary.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>