Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2009
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez<rgarciasuarez@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/23 Steve Peters <steve@fisharerojo.org>: >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Ricardo >> SIGNES<perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: >>> >>> Talking about Perl 5 git repo tonight, some questions came up about where >>> development really happens. This patch is a bit of clarification about >>> where/why patches go to blead/maint. >>> >>> -- >> >> I'm not entirely sure about this patch. Rarely should a patch ever be >> applied directly to maint without hitting blead first. I can only >> think of one case where I had a patch applied to maint only and that >> was due to API differences between blead and maint. I'd rather that >> patches be pointed at blead than at maint without being directed by >> the appropriate pumpking. > > Chip has already applied it, although with another commit message, > with a workflow leak somehow: > http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commitdiff/7f4ffa9dba4691a2cd3285cfb3fd76f6f6bd661 > Maybe Ricardo and/or Chip can fill us in on the conversation that led to this patch. It certainly is not an accurate description of current practice. Particularly the statement, "Maintenance versions should only be altered to add critical bug fixes," is a pretty radical change and raises more questions than it answers (such as what constitutes "critical"). Even if that's a release workflow we can or should get to, it's a long way from here to there and at the very least the doc patch is more predictive than descriptive.Thread Previous | Thread Next