Hi All, We've reached the stage in the release cycle where we have to limit which bug fixes can be merged into 2.3 RC to prevent unnecessary disruption to the soon-to-be GA code. However, we don't want to limit bug merges in the 2.3 branch, because anything that doesn't make the GA release will get folded into the 2.3.1 release -- and bug fixes are good, so we don't want to complicate the process.
I have two proposals. I'd love to get a few +/-1's today, since the plan needs to be enacted now :) 1. Create an origin/rel_2_3_rc1 branch. (I mentioned this briefly in my recent RC1 planning email). It will be a child of tags/rel_2_3_rc1. All fixes that meet the RC standards (more below) may be merged into this branch. tags/rel_2_3_0, and subsequently the 2.3.0 release, will be derived from the origin/rel_2_3_rc1 branch. Regular fixes will merge into master -> rel_2_3. RC fixes will merge into master -> rel_2_3 -> rel_2_3_rc1. This adds an additional step to getting code into the RC / final release, but I think that's better than temporarily complicating the standard bug-merging work flow. 2. I'd like to change the definition of "showstopper", i.e. what can and cannot make it into an RC. I propose that any reasonable bug fix may be merged into an RC provided the commit has 3 sign-offs in total -- the author, plus 2 additional testers. That would allow us to avoid the whole benevolent-overlords-blessing-problems-as-showstoppers process, which is vague and time-consuming, while maintaining a generally higher level of quality for any fixes merged into the RC. In other words, let the market decide. If a problem merits attention (and showstoppers will), then it will be merged. If it's not a showstopper in the traditional sense, but really improves things, it can get merged too. Thoughts appreciated. Thanks, -b -- Bill Erickson | Senior Software Developer | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://esilibrary.com
