Hi, I am a new contributor of a few bug fixes, and Aleksey’s comment resonates with me.
Nowadays, bug fixes go to four branches (4.0, 4.1, 5.0, trunk). Each additional branch introduces significant overhead, so I am not looking forward for having more branches to contribute a fix. I’ve also experienced difficulty to find committers, and, I believe, that the need to commit to multiple branches contributes to this challenge. I hope my input as a contributor (not a committer) helps illustrate some of the tradeoffs, and that future changes will not make bug fix contributions more complicated. Best regards, Ruslan > On 30 Oct 2025, at 16:23, Aleksey Yeshchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > The mandatory extra work would come from having additional branches on the > merge path up. In addition to actually merging the code, it’s the hassle of > getting green CI results for the backport branches, delaying the merge. > > Or these branches are skipped on the regular merge path and it becomes the > job of the branch-backport volunteers - now responsible for every single > commit that lands in that branch, including the future-ports of bug fixes. > >> On 24 Oct 2025, at 07:49, Dinesh Joshi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Committers are not required to backport their features to these branches so >> I don't see this as 'mandatory' for all committers. Please elaborate if >> there are aspects of maintenance that I've missed. >
