[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: RFC: Release process amendment (was Re: Vetoing latest issue #3020 fix in 1.6.10)

From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:24:38 -0700

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> I'll work on a fix that can handle both use cases, but for now I am
>>> changing my vote to -1 and reverting this backport.
>>>
>>
>> And just so folks know, Paul's got the RM's blessing on this.
>
> Great that he has your blessing, but I would suggest that he really doesn't
> need it.  We necessarily must allow for -1's to come late to the party in
> the backport process, and for them to be binding-to-the-point-of-reversion,
> even if they come -- heck, *especially* if they come -- from the person who
> previously proposed or voted affirmatively for a backport.
>
> In fact, I would argue that we should never roll a release within so many
> days of the most recent backport to the release branch, just to avoid any
> threesome getting together to, intentionally or otherwise, railroad
> last-minute changes into a release without time for other eyeballs.  Why the
> backport as the time-critical piece instead of the STATUS votes?  Because
> the backport generates a commit mail that folks are more likely to pay real
> attention to than the STATUS churn.
>
> What do others think about this?  Could we live with a policy change that
> says that a release can only be cut 24 weekday hours after the most recent
> non-trivial backport to its branch?

IMO, it's not necessary and should be left to the RM's discretion
rather than a formal policy change. If you can really get three
people to collude on an 'evil' change *and* the RM agrees with
including it in the release, so be it. If you want to hit those three
with a wet sock full of rocks afterwards, have fun. But, the reason
why we require three people to sign off is to ensure adequate review -
I don't think we need to have another gating mechanism.

FWIW, this goes to the idea that releases can not be vetoed. If the
RM is okay with including it, that's the final say. If you don't like
the decisions the RM makes, you too can be an RM. =P

My $.02. -- justin
Received on 2010-03-31 17:25:06 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.