On 09/27/2013 03:42 PM, Chad wrote:
I agree it's too bureaucratic. In fact, I'd
propose we go a completely
different route with backporting. If something needs backporting, it
should land in the old branch first. Then we can occasionally just
merge those branches forward to master.
If we can land fixes on the old branches
first, this makes a lot of sense.
The problem I see, though, is that now we have to train everyone who is
going to fix code to put it on the oldest supported branch first instead
of just fixing it in master.
So, yes, the policy to let bugs get fixed without too much effort while
providing a process (also known as "bureaucracy") to ensure that the
older code has a way of being supported.
But, if the process gets in the way and someone fixes the older code
first and then merges the fix forward, they shouldn't be told to do it
over and "follow the process." The policy is there to help deal with
the current situation, not to provide a list of steps that *must* be
Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. Am I missing something?
Mark A. Hershberger