My interpretation of this is as follows:
1. I send out a notification before merging changes
2a. I think review should pass anyway -> go ahead and merge
2b. Otherwise: give others some time to look at it before merging,
depending on complexity, availability etc.
3. Optional: In case of review failure after the fact -> revert again
With 3 we don't limit ourselves to perform the review in a fix time frame,
which might not be feasible.
That's exactly what I had in mind!
Michael
Wdyt?
Kind regards
Angela
On 16/03/17 09:53, "Davide Giannella" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2017 10:59, Michael Dürig wrote:
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.
+1 if we time box it for each backport. For example 3 days or whatever.
Something like we do for releases. This is to prevent a backport to be
stalling for too long. We may even define a vote policy like for
releases but to be taken on the issue itself rather than here in the list.
Davide
