On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:15:00AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 4/17/11 2:33 AM, "Graham Percival" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Instead, I think we should mark something as "fixed" if the patch > > is in git master, but add a "backport" label. You will remove > > that label when you actually do backport it, and I'll check to see > > if there's anything with "backport" before making any releases. > > OK, I like this idea. But I reserve the right to remove the backport label > if I don't feel like it's best to backport a given patch.
Of course! > > One consequence of this is that the bug squad's "verify" step > > becomes more important, but at least it doesn't drive a huge spike > > through normal development and bugs. > > Verify can't happen until it's backported. So we'll have a large number of > issues that are fixed but not verified. I hadn't thought of that, but I guess we'll have to live with it. :( At least we'll have the fixed_2_15_0 (or rather, a lack of fixed_2_13_61) to warn Bug Squad members that they shouldn't bother to look at those. > But it would be nice if the Bug Squad could verify any issues that are fixed > pre 2.13.61 so that the list of issues to verify is the backport candidates. Given the existing difficulties with the bug squad, there's no way that I can support asking them to play with git master. I think we'll just have to live it. We'll probably end up racking up 20-50 issues that are fixed_2_15_0, but so be it. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
