> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 11:45 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> That is way when we backport we transition to RTC, because
>>> we want to ENSURE it's been reviewed.
>> Wrong. I was there. RTC was adopted in order to ensure both the
>> reliability but moreso, the compatibility of changes during a given
>> x.y major/minor release cycle. CTR existed to make forward progress
>> and get out of our developers' way.
> I'm not really sure Jim's statement here is "wrong". Regardless of historical
> context. We use RTC when we want to guarantee review.
>> You are suggesting a change of policy. It
>> is not policy to use RTC to get from trunk to 2.6.0, and will not
>> become policy without a vote for such a change by the PMC.
> I'm not entirely convinced Jim is suggesting a change in policy, as you say.
> But in any case, I would be +1 to such a change. We should not be releasing a
> 2.6.x that contains unreviewed code.
It's not a policy change, right. It's a clarification of the policy. CTR was to
allow for fast development. As Bill said, so the process got out of
the developers way. But we also ensured RTC such that anything
that made its way *into a release branch* was "formally" reviewed.