Hi Markus
Markus Mohrhard wrote > * Does the fix contain a new feature? > * How important is the bug fix? > * Is the fix safe enough for a stable branch? > * How much did the code change between the two versions? Points 1 and 2: if it's a regression it's not new and it's EXTREMELY important not to have regressions (regardless of importance of the feature) Point 3: that is why it needs to be checked by 3 devs Point 4: that should not be relevant. If the regression is already fixed in master, then it should not be that difficult to backport it to the current branch (unless it's a major version change) Markus Mohrhard wrote > This should never be an automatic process, instead each commit needs this > check by > a developer. I agree completely. I never mentioned automatic. But it should be included in the list of checks before a new release to make sure that ALL MAB regressions that *were* fixed should be cherry picked to the nearest release. I believe that is the reason there are 2 Release Candidates before the final release... Regards, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/URGENT-Cherry-pick-regressions-to-next-release-tp4064385p4064589.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
