Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, canmove, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
4,083
edits
MozillaReleasePlanning: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add my views from L10n and SeaMonkey point
No edit summary |
(Add my views from L10n and SeaMonkey point) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
|Bernd | |Bernd | ||
|I am focused on stability work in table code. Given the long time without a real freeze I would prefer the late branch taking the trunk as a hostage to get the beast stable. This would help both trunk and branch folks on a long run. Or reverse formulated branching from a unstable trunk creates unecessary work on porting. | |I am focused on stability work in table code. Given the long time without a real freeze I would prefer the late branch taking the trunk as a hostage to get the beast stable. This would help both trunk and branch folks on a long run. Or reverse formulated branching from a unstable trunk creates unecessary work on porting. | ||
|- | |||
|Robert Kaiser | |||
|From the L10n point of view, I think that [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=286108 bug 286108] (Thunderbird source L10n) should be completed before branching, so that we don't have to backport those CVS moves to trunk again. From my view in SeaMonkey project, forcing people to work with the "stable" code a bit longer (by branching late) and not opening trunk too soon sounds like a good idea as well, as we need to bundle our resources to get a release out. | |||
|} | |} | ||