Re: [URGENT RFC] Branching and reopening -unstable

[Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Hi Wei,

Thanks for CCing me, for me, I prefer option 2, it won't affect the normal
development release cycle, if the contributor wants to contribute to
-unstable, then it is his responsibility to resolve the confilicts on the
main branch. but I think it depends on the maintainers who will make the
decision.

On 08/11/2015 08:31 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> CCing Hongyang, I missed him when I copy-n-paste emails from MAINTAINERS.
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:44:07AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> RC1 is going to be tagged this week (maybe today). We need to figure
>> out when to branch / reopen -unstable for committing and what rules
>> should be applied until 4.6 is out of the door.
>>
>> Ian, Ian and I had a conversation IRL. We discussed several things,
>> but figured it is necessary to have more people involved before making
>> any decision.
>>
>> Here is my recollection of the conversation.
>>
>> Branching should be done at one of the RC tags. It might not be enough
>> time for us to reach consensus before tagging RC1, so I would say lets
>> branch at RC2 if we don't observe blocker bugs.
>>
>> Maintainers should be responsible for both 4.6 branch and -unstable
>> branch.
>>
>> As for bug fixes, here are two options.
>>
>> Option 1: bug fixes go into -unstable, backport / cherry-pick bug
>> fixes back to 4.6. This seems to leave the tree in half frozen status
>> because we need to reject refactoring patches in case they cause
>> backporting failure.
>>
>> Option 2: bug fixes go into 4.6, merge them to -unstable. If merge has
>> conflict and maintainers can't deal with that, the authors of those
>> changes in -unstable which cause conflict is responsible for fixing up
>> the conflict.
>>
>> Ian and Ian, anything I miss? Anything to add?
>>
>> Others, thoughts?
>>
>> Wei.
> .
>

-- 
Thanks,
Yang.