Nick Kew wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
IMO if we try and deal with that for a security release this week,
we'll botch it. Better to propose backports with a view to 2.2.4.
Right. I suppose we agreed to have a 2.2.4 in a lesser time frame
then 2.2.3, so that's fine.
As for number of backports, the ease (or otherwise) of reviewing
it is the most important criterion. So perhaps group closely
related changes in a single proposal, but split any that are
only loosely related.
Hmm. Lots of people participated. I'm not sure how to group the
patches that were done during the last few months.
I suppose we can simply state the patches made and vote for the
entire bunch cause they are dependent on each other.
Since in none of those patches are 2.3 API dependent,
there is nothing to 'backport' that would require the
different code from the one that is in the HEAD.
Regards,
Mladen.
