Hi Julian Unfortunately we had issues more than once and they are not limited to indices. I distinctly remember troubles with semantic versioning, severe bugs that were back ported without anybody looking at the code, troublesome API...
Therefore I don't agree that sending a mail to the list and inviting others to review changes is a waste of time or too much overhead. Kind regards Angela On 14/03/17 13:19, "Julian Reschke" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >
