On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:03:53 -0400 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Pulling this out as a proposal: > > I propose that we track all backports in 2.4 STATUS as we currently > do. Each backport is time-tagged and we operate under a lazy > consensus. Assuming no -1 votes within 96 hours, the backport > can be applied to 2.4.x. If the backport gets 3 +1 votes sooner > than that, then it can be applied asap... > > As with ALL patches, any commit can be reverted for good > technical (or legal) reasons. > > [X] -1: Disagree with this proposal (and why) Agreed in part, that *major* backports (or activity, if we did set aside /trunk/ for the near-term) are tracked in STATUS with lazy consensus. I actually thought the 72 hours was not a bad window. I would think a +/-0 with discussion would be enough to add some days for deeper consideration of a proposal. Disagree in part, that minor backports (or activity, if we did set aside /trunk/ for the near-term) do not need STATUS and should not have the obstacle of STATUS tracking.
