On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> In terms of the merge strategy, nothing about the current process would > change. Defects would be fixed on the branch where they occurred and then > forward ported to master. For each maintained LTS branch less than 14 > months old, only blocker and critical defects that fall within the LTS’ > branch scope would be pulled back from master. Therefore, the number of > defects backported should be relatively small. Any defects found and fixed > in an LTS branch would be forward ported to master. I will clarify the > proposal to establish this merge pattern to ensure that LTS does not > violate or impede the flow of defect fixes on master and maintained monthly > releases. > John, Any backporting should be avoided. Any fix review should include the contemplation of the question, 'Is this on the right branch?'. That is my point. I am not against LTS. I want fixes to be traceable by their commit id over all branches. Backporting is killing in that respect. I am not the release manager so rest assured I will not make an issue of this any more. I won't hold my peace either, though. -- Daan
