Re: Fido backports

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1686 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:23:02PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:59 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If noone has objections I would like to propose the backport of:
> >>>
> >>> # Upgrade
> >>> 2c57f950a
> >
> > Is going from 0.9.2 -> 1.2.1 bug or security fixes ? Give me a real good
> > reason to allow this.
> 
> Neither that I am aware of. That is why I split those two as I knew
> this need discussion.

OK, then I would prefer you to keep them in local backport.

There were few exceptions to this rule about no-new-features, but they
usually had some good clarifications or were at least some minor
upgrades to newer bugfix release.

> We need this for one project and we can keep using a local backport;
> this was just for reduce delta for something which seems safe.
> 
> >>> # New recipe
> >>> 2315f412f6
> >
> > I thought adding new recipes to a maintenance branch was not allowed ?
> 
> I think it depends on situation. I think we ought to avoid adding new
> features when possible, specially for old branches as this motivates
> people to upgrade.
> 
> Have said that, I am biased here so I prefer to not argument in favor
> of inclusion or not. As the upgrade, we can keep a local backport for
> it.

With new recipe my thoughts are the same as above, if we all try to push
our backport delta, then there would be too many changes and eventually
more regressions in release branch - only if many people report that they
all need the same feature backport to resolve some needs, then we should
make exceptions.

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]