I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For 2.0, we have the STATUS entries that track the waiting-to-be-merged patches. You can commit the changes without prior review into HEAD (2.1), but need approval/consensus to merge them back into older branches.hmm. what's the general strategy? leaving non-critical bugs in (older versions ;-) or decide for every case, what should be done?
I also think the amount of backporting depends on how much time the people involved in fixing an issue have and whether they want to devote time to backporting everything they do. -- justin
