sounds like a plan angela On 14/03/17 11:59, "Michael Dürig" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hi, > >Following up on Davide's release plan for Oak 1.6 [1] we should define a >merge policy for the 1.6 branch. I would suggest to be a bit more >conservative here than we have been in the past and ask for reviews of >backports. That is, announce candidates on @oak-dev mentioning the issue >reference, potential risks, mitigations, etc. I don't think we need to >block the actual backport being performed on the outcome of the review >as in the worst case changes can always be reverted. The main aim of the >announcement should be to increase visibility of the backports and >ensure they are eventually reviewed. > >In short, announce your backport on @oak-dev and ask for review. If >confident enough that the review will pass anyway, go ahead but be >prepared to revert. > >I think this is what we informally did so far already but wanted to >state this a bit more explicitly. > >WDYT? > >Michael > > > >[1] >https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e5e71b61de9612d7cac195cbe948e8bdca58e >e38ee16e7f124ea742c@%3Coak-dev.jackrabbit.apache.org%3E
