On 10.04.17 17:59, Michael Dürig wrote:
Hi,
I think we can get a consensus on the following statement:
"Back ports bear a certain risk of introducing regressions to otherwise
stable branches. Each back ported change should be carefully evaluated
for its potential impact, risk and possible mitigations. It is the
responsibility of each committer to asses these and ask for advise or
reviewing on oak-dev@ if uncertain. Whether using RTC or CTR is up to
the committer."
I will add a statement along these lines to the "Participating" section
of the Oak documentation unless there are further objections.
Done http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1792601&view=rev
Michael
Michael
On 14.03.17 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.
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/e5e71b61de9612d7cac195cbe948e8bdca58ee38ee16e7f124ea742c@%3Coak-dev.jackrabbit.apache.org%3E
