On 2017-03-14 12:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2017-03-14 11:59, Michael Dürig 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.
...
That sounds like a lot of overhead to me.
What actual problem are we solving with this?
Best regards, Julian
I guess I need to expand on this.
AFAICT, this has been triggered by one specific case where we backported
something without considering the impact on existing deployments (here:
creation of a new index that might cause the update to take a long time
on big repositories).
(Or am I missing something here...?)
Contrast with that with the tons of backports we've been doing, yes,
carefully, without such problems.
Best regards, Julian
