Re: GConf reverse string freeze breakage approval

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>]

On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 15:57 +0200, Danilo Åegan wrote:
> Today at 13:48, Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> > 	All I'm really saying is that I don't think the hard string freeze was
> > in effect when this change was approved or committed.
> 
> And all I'm saying is that I disagree.  But it doesn't matter much
> now, we shouldn't make a big fuss out of it since it's already
> approved (precisely for the reason that we're *early* in the string
> freeze).  There is some merit in the claim that freeze only starts
> after the tarball is released, but it's unpractical to make it that
> (for explained reasons: tracking 69 modules is simply too much). And
> according to schedule, tarballs should have been ready by 8th, so we
> are already using that as a guideline.

	Okay, probably the best way to make it less confusing for translators
is to say that the freeze kicks in after the release - i.e. in this case
it would have been the 11th. Sound reasonable?

Cheers,
Mark.