Re: (no subject)

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

This is good feedback. If anyone else has such, please do send- we're
all trying to learn to make this work as well as possible.
Luis

On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 13:53, Jens Finke wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> first, many thanks for the great Gnome 2.4 and the overall good
> release planning. Where else do we see a release precisely the day of
> the schedule?
> 
> But IMHO there is also room for some improvements:
> 
> 1) One week between two beta release is just too short. Eg. tarballs
>    for beta2 were due to August 25th, the release was announced on
>    August, 31 [1] and the tarballs for RC-1 were requested one day
>    later on September, 1st. One day is definetly too short to compile
>    the whole release, test it, report bugs and try to fix the
>    errors. For eog I got some reports, but I had zero time to fix them
>    for RC-1. IMO there should be _at least_ two weeks between two
>    releases.
> 
> 2) Around June we missed or delayed some release dates quite
>    badly. But the different freeze dates (IIRC UI freeze) weren't
>    shifted. IMHO it's bad to freeze something without having enough
>    testers to look at it before. Maybe the freeze dates should be bound
>    to releases (like: feature freeze after beta 2.3.2).
> 
> 3) The release schedule on the website should be up to date. This was
>    not always the case. It's irritating sometimes. [Ok this one, is 
>    probably only a lack of time or manpower :]
> 
> However, please take this as constructive criticism. I really appreciate
> all the work the release team have done for Gnome 2.4 and hope you
> will continue your efforts so that we see a great Gnome 2.6.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
>    Jens
> 
> 1: 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-announce-list/2003-August/msg00119.html
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
>