On Jul 6, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] >>> How about this, just to define it (more or less what David just said): >>> * For development/feature branches, the developer(s) have a >> responsibility of making sure their code will cleanly merge back into master, >> either by keeping their branch in sync with master, or by doing any triage at >> time of merging their branch back to master when ready. >>> * The only time CS patches and releases an update for a release is in the >> event of a security vulnerability. If a vulnerability is found, the CS team >> will >> evaluate releases within the last 3 releases, and issue patches where >> necessary. >>> * Otherwise, patches will be applied to the master tree only. >>> >> >> I am ok with this in principle. But let me toss another situation and see >> what >> your reaction is. >> Let's say we release 5.2.0 on Monday, and on Wednesday, we find an >> absolutely horrendous bug that would effect a large number of users. >> Would we still wait til 5.3.0 n-months down the road - or release >> 5.2.1 in a matter of a week(s)? >> >> While I don't like the idea of maintaining multiple releases, there are >> occasions where it could make sense. > > I agree, in that case we'd have to release a 5.2.1, otherwise the users will > go somewhere else. > > I assume whoever was release manager for the 5.2.0 release would own the > subsequent maintenance releases -- including deciding whether or not there is > one, and what goes in if there is one. I'm unclear on who would be expected > to merge a given fix from master into the 5.2.x branch. Perhaps the release > manager should create a ticket then assign it to whoever committed the > original patch? So by committing a patch you agree to subsequently merge it > into other branches if asked to do so by a release manager in the project.
Sorry - forgot to respond to David's last message - I'll blame the cold medicine… I concur that a new minor point release should be created in that case. Regarding how to get the patch applied to branches - I'd like to think the release manager and patch contributor/committer would work together - if it's a simple patch, release manager should be able to apply it. If it's something more complex, I'd like to see the two work together. John
