I have always implicitly assumed Matt view, but I am happy to conform to what the consensus is.
I believe this discussion is very useful and could contribute a new entry in the commiter guidelines. Nicola On Fri, May 24, 2019, 07:21 Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> wrote: > > > On 24/05/2019 15:10, Richard Levitte wrote: > > Not sure I see it as picking nits, it's rather about some fundamental > > difference in what we thinking we're approving, and how we actually > > act around that. > > > > My idea has always been that I approve a code change, i.e. essentially > > a patch or a set of patches, without regard for exact branches it ends > > up in. With the in mind, the exact branches it gets applied to is a > > *separate* question. > > That's not the way I've ever thought of it. In my mind an approval is for a > change applied to a specific branch. Where a PR lists more than one branch > in it > and you approve the PR then effectively you are approving it multiple > times all > in one go - once for each branch. > > > > If we go with the idea that an approval also involves approving what > > branches it goes to, then what happens if someone realises after some > > time that a set of commits (a PR) that was applied to master only > > should really also be applied to 1.1.1? Should the approval process > > start over from scratch, i.e. all approvals that went to master should > > be scratched and replaced with a new set of approvals (in principle)? > > No. If the PR was approved for master and applied to master then no > problem - it > stays in master. If it is later realised that it needs to be backported to > other > branches then, yes, new approvals need to be sought for that change to > *those > branches*. > > As far as I was aware we've always done this. > > This is essential in my mind. A change for one branch does not always make > sense > in another branch. So you can't just say "I approve this change" and *then* > worry about what branches it applies to. A change only makes sense in the > context of the branch it applies to. > > Matt >