On 14.03.17 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?
The code review is something we should be doing anyway. The only added
overhead here is the extra email asking for review. This is a bit of
extra work for the person doing the backport but saves a couple of
others time figuring out what a commit is about, its criticality, risk
etc. Overall the effort would actually be less. And this doesn't even
take into account all the extra effort a rogue backport would cause
should we miss it by the standard CTR policy.
Michael
Best regards, Julian
