On 2013-06-18 12:32:42 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Contributors,
> >>
> >> While going through this mailing list looking for missing 9.4 patches, I
> >> realized that we don't track backpatches (that is, fixes to prior
> >> versions) at all anywhere. Where backpatches are submitted by
> >> committers this isn't an issue, but we had a couple major ones (like the
> >> autovacuum fix) which were submitted by general contributors. The same
> >> goes for beta fixes.
> >>
> >> Should we add a "prior version" category to the CF to make sure these
> >> don't get dropped? Or do something else?
> >
> > A separate commit fest for tracking proposed backpatches might be
> > useful.
>
> The CF app was and is specifically for dealing with CFs. Having it
> deal with backpatches makes it, well, a bugtracker. It's not meant to
> be that. If we want a bugtracker, then it has very different
> requirements.
>
> Having an always-open CF would defeat the workflow. But since those
> patches are typically going into HEAD as well, why not just a
> commitfest *topic* for it, on whatever commitfest happens to be the
> open one? Then it'll get processed within the existing workflow.
The schedules for a CF and a minor release don't really line up though,
so I am not sure if that ends up being much better than not tracking
them there...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services