Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On the other hand, we tell our users that we only back-patch security > and stability fixes.
Perhaps I missed where this changed, but my recollection is that we also back-patch bug-fixes, and I don't think we should change that. > When customers start to doubt that, then they > become reluctant to apply new minor versions in their entirety and ask > for individual commits to be cherry-picked, or just don't upgrade at > all. One could argue that commits to the testing framework shouldn't > make customers nervous, but what people should be worried about and > what they are actually worried about do not always match. It is > useful to be able to show a customer a list of things that were done > in a minor release and see nothing in there that can be described as > optional tinkering. If the perception issue is that customers aren't comfortable with changes being made in the main repo which are due to adding testing then we should consider having an independent test repo which is also able to be run through the buildfarm. Perhaps we would be able to consider having a more relaxed policy around that repository also, along with a way to distinguish failures on the main repo vs. failures from this other repo (where the issue might be the test itself rather than an issue in the code, or it might be an issue in the code that the test exposed but isn't yet fixed, but allows people to see that their independent changes on the main repo aren't what caused the buildfarm to turn red). Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
