On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I propose that the release of 3.0rc2 is deferred until all release blockers have been resolved (either by actually fixing them, or by carefully considering that they shouldn't actually block the release).
What else is the point of having the "release blocker" priority, if they don't actually manage to block the release?
Also, I would like to think that there shouldn't be any non-documentation changes between the last release candidate, and the final release(*). Otherwise, what's the point of calling it a "release candidate" if it doesn't actually get released, later? IOW, what's the difference to a beta release?
(*) Consequently, there doesn't need to be much more time between the release candidate and the final release except but a few days, or, at most, a week.
That's been the policy for the last few releases, as far as I can recall.