On 09/27/2013 03:42 PM, Chad wrote: > I agree it's too bureaucratic. In fact, I'd propose we go a completely > different route with backporting. If something needs backporting, it > should land in the old branch first. Then we can occasionally just > merge those branches forward to master. If we can land fixes on the old branches first, this makes a lot of sense.
The problem I see, though, is that now we have to train everyone who is going to fix code to put it on the oldest supported branch first instead of just fixing it in master. So, yes, the policy to let bugs get fixed without too much effort while providing a process (also known as "bureaucracy") to ensure that the older code has a way of being supported. But, if the process gets in the way and someone fixes the older code first and then merges the fix forward, they shouldn't be told to do it over and "follow the process." The policy is there to help deal with the current situation, not to provide a list of steps that *must* be followed. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. Am I missing something? -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084 _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
