Kevin Grittner wrote:
> You've as much as said that it's a given that many of the
> contributors will continue to work on new patches during this period
> to earn a living, while hopefully volunteering to help with getting
> the release out the door on their own time. As I understand the
> arguments, having that occur as a "guilty secret", with no community
> discussion or review during that period, versus trying to find a way
> to organizationally admit the fact and try to manage the available
> resources in a real versus pretend way is the issue here.
>
>
It's not a guilty secret, it's not really a secret at all. People have
in the past submitted patches during beta, and there has been extensive
discussion about them. You just have to wait to get patches into the
tree. In the past I suggested that we should branch much earlier to
allow such patches to get into the tree. The argument against it, which
I think is probably valid, is that we don't have the resources to manage
both trees, and it could be a distraction for those working on polishing
the release.
As for getting more coverage of Beta, part of my trouble in testing
applications on Beta is that there aren't good tools I know of for
capture and replay of usage scenarios. Now there would be a good project
for someone, and it would be unaffected by the Beta cycle.
cheers
andrew
