Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2010
On Jun 29, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:59:12PM -0400, David Golden wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Todd Rinaldo <toddr@cpanel.net> wrote: >>> This is arguably a bug fix to 5.12 do we think it's worthy of a back port for 5.12.2? >> >> +1 to cherry pick >> >> I'm not sure it alone is sufficient to prompt a 5.12.2 release, but if >> one happens later this year, I think it should probably be included. > > I thought that Jesse's plan was, barring unforeseen circumstances, to make a > 5.12.2 release about 3 months after 5.12.1 > > However, in the interests of smoothness and smoking, I don't think that it's a > good idea to wait until near the release date before merging lots of changes > to the branch. Yet, right now that's what seems to be happening - everyone is > leaving it to someone else to consider what should be merged into maint-5.12, > and consequently it's rather "special biologist word", and would-be smokers > are idle. > > Does regular merge reviewing (and regular patch reviewing and regular bug > reviewing) really not happen unless a pumpking does it, or a pumpking gently > but repeatedly cajoles others to do it? > I wasn't thinking this warrants a 5.12.2 release when I suggested the back port. I was thinking that we were doing this pseudo-postgres style in that the person who commits to trunk is supposed to consider whether the patch is worthy of back port into previous versions and then do the back port. This would take a major load off the release manager's back and would allow everyone to know what's coming for 5.12.2 as we go. Then all the release manager has to do is review the back ports and decide if anything crazy made it into the branch and re-base them out. My impression is that only a hand full of changes are qualified to make it into a 5.12.2 release based on the new stringent requirements for a back port. Todd RinaldoThread Previous | Thread Next