Re: stable/2.14 and fixed_2_x_y

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:15:00AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 4/17/11 2:33 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Instead, I think we should mark something as "fixed" if the patch
> > is in git master, but add a "backport" label.  You will remove
> > that label when you actually do backport it, and I'll check to see
> > if there's anything with "backport" before making any releases.
> 
> OK, I like this idea.  But I reserve the right to remove the backport label
> if I don't feel like it's best to backport a given patch.

Of course!

> > One consequence of this is that the bug squad's "verify" step
> > becomes more important, but at least it doesn't drive a huge spike
> > through normal development and bugs.
> 
> Verify can't happen until it's backported.  So we'll have a large number of
> issues that are fixed but not verified.

I hadn't thought of that, but I guess we'll have to live with it. :(

At least we'll have the fixed_2_15_0 (or rather, a lack of
fixed_2_13_61) to warn Bug Squad members that they shouldn't
bother to look at those.

> But it would be nice if the Bug Squad could verify any issues that are fixed
> pre 2.13.61 so that the list of issues to verify is the backport candidates.

Given the existing difficulties with the bug squad, there's no way
that I can support asking them to play with git master.

I think we'll just have to live it.  We'll probably end up racking
up 20-50 issues that are fixed_2_15_0, but so be it.

Cheers,
- Graham