Yup, the intended merge level is just a hint, the responsibility still lies with the committers. It can be a helpful hint, though.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How are Alpha components and higher level libraries which may add small > > features within a maintenance release going to be marked with that > status? > > Somehow/somewhere within the code itself, as just as some kind of > external > > reference? > > I think we'd mark alpha features as such in the java/scaladoc. This is > what scala does with experimental features. Higher level libraries are > anything that isn't Spark core. Maybe we can formalize this more > somehow. > > We might be able to annotate the new features as experimental if they > end up in a patch release. This could make it more clear. > > > > > I would strongly encourage that developers submitting pull requests > include > > within the description of that PR whether you intend the contribution to > be > > mergeable at the maintenance level, minor level, or major level. That > will > > help those of us doing code reviews and merges decide where the code > should > > go and how closely to scrutinize the PR for changes that are not > compatible > > with the intended release level. > > I'd say the default is the minor level. If contributors know it should > be added in a maintenance release, it's great if they say so. However > I'd say this is also responsibility with the committers, since > individual contributors may not know. It will probably be a while > before major level patches are being merged :P >
