Needs to be followed up with action. I pushed to main a minute ago :-) On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 6:56 PM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> There seems to be a setting for .asf.yaml that lets you excempt a team > from branch protection rules (link < > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml/blob/main/README.md#rulesets > >) > > github: > rulesets: > - name: "Branch Protection" > ... > bypass_teams: > - "release-managers" > > So if we could have a team defined solr-rm and ask INFRA to add the RM > to that team before a release, and remove after, then we'd have both... > > Jan > > > 22. okt. 2026 kl. 21:55 skrev Houston Putman <[email protected]>: > > > > We need to push to main for releases though. Do we need to change that to > > PRs? That would be slightly annoying. Other than releases, I like the > idea. > > > > - Houston > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 12:50 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> +1 to protect main only. > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 4:35 AM Jalaz Kumar <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 to protect main from any accidental push. PRs raised on github > should > >> be > >>> the only way we make changes in main. > >>> > >>> [Q] what's next here? Who owns these setting changes in the repository? > >> The > >>> PMC chair will do or some one from the PMC will pitch & carry this out. > >>> Since the thread was out there for a week so, I thought of asking it > >> here, > >>> apology if this is already being acted upon by someone. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 3:26 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 to protect main. This has happened before and I want to but in a > >>>> control to stop it. > >>>> > >>>> -1 to the other branches that Rahul listed for the reasons he gave. > >>>> > >>>> On 2026/10/14 18:45:25 Rahul Goswami wrote: > >>>>> +1 to protection on main, limited to PR-only merges. > >>>>> I'd leave out the other branches (branch_9x, branch_10x, etc) from > >> this > >>>>> policy though since we often backport. Creating/reviewing/merging a > >> PR > >>>> for > >>>>> each backport would be cumbersome. Also, I know David's backporting > >>> skill > >>>>> takes care of the backports with the labels, so not sure how that'd > >>> play > >>>>> with branch protection. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Rahul > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 2:26 PM Andrzej Białecki <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It’s easy to make some missteps and accidentally push stuff that > >> you > >>>> don’t > >>>>>> intend to branches that you didn’t intent to push to ;) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We already forbid force push on all branches (at least I hope > >> so?). I > >>>>>> propose to put also a protection lock on all branches (maybe except > >>> the > >>>>>> active release branches to make the RM’s job somewhat easier). In > >>>> practical > >>>>>> terms this means that any changes to these branches MUST go through > >>> PR > >>>>>> merges, and direct commits to branches are rejected. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Andrzej > >>>>>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Regards > >>> Jalaz Kumar > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > >> https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > >> > >
