[Bf-committers] [Bf-blender-cvs] SVN commit: /data/svn/bf-blender  tags/blender-2.69-release/blender: svn merge ^/trunk/blender -c60755 -c60766 -c60792 -c60796
Brecht Van Lommel
brechtvanlommel at pandora.be
Mon Oct 21 17:36:13 CEST 2013
>From latest discussions on IRC, conclusion is this:
* We will do an RC3 as the changes in this commit are non-trivial and
* Some other minor fixes were committed, but we will not be merging
more fixes to the 2.69 release branch unless there is a very good
reason for them.
* RC3 ahoy will follow soon.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Bastien Montagne <montagne29 at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> For the record, if we decide to do RC3 instead of release (which I'd
> find more sensible now), I will also backport two oneliners - both are
> full secure, and one is a fix for a new 2.69 feature (not sure this has
> same status as regression?): 60857 and 60858.
> On 21/10/2013 15:26, Sergey Sharybin wrote:
>> I would strictly recommend stop backporting fixes for a not-a-regression
>> but to release branch. 60774 is a fix for 36905 which is not a regression.
>> It is NOT to be merged.
>> And strictly speaking 60766 should have not been merged. Not as if is to be
>> reverted, but next time one merged not-a-regression fix to release branch
>> he'll get kicked. Seriously, we can not fix all the bugs in release, we
>> could only fix regressions. And having bunch of changes happening after tag
>> just makes things more complicated.
>> Also the fact that we've got a regression in RC2 comparing to RC1 (#37100)
>> needs to be investigated further. I would not expect regressions in RC(N)
>> comparing to RC(N-1).
>> Assuming that Shinsuke mentioned 2 more revisions (even one-liner) to be
>> merged, i would call it RC3 today, NOT a release.
>> Brecht, do you agree with having RC3 today?
>> P.S. Splash is to be changed again it seems.
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:
>>> My point here is, that we agreed on doing proper proper Release
>>> Candidates and Release now.
>>> I don't mind a small one-liner, in this case we could risk it.
>>> But since RC2 we had 60845, 60871 and 60875 with backports...also not
>>> all of them seem to be really showstopper bugs?
>>> I know we have a lot to handle this week, but I see no reason to rush
>>> the release. If we can't handle it properly this week, do it next week.
>>> Am 21.10.2013 14:57, schrieb Thomas Dinges:
>>>> Yesterday we talked about just 1 or 2 one-liners, and now it's getting
>>>> In this case we maybe should consider doing a RC3...
>>>> Also, we should only backport regressions. Is 60774 a regression?
>>>> Am 21.10.2013 14:41, schrieb Antony Riakiotakis:
>>>>> Hey Campbell, could you merge 60774 as well?
>>>>> Bf-blender-cvs mailing list
>>>>> Bf-blender-cvs at blender.org
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers