On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:37:23PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:08:50PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > > > >> PS: Since RC is "Release candidate" we should IMHO only allow really > >> critical bug fixes between RC1 and 2.2.0 final. In particular I think we > >> should not do a RC2. > > > > I think I mostly agree, although I would take off the qualifier "really" > > for critical bugs. Also I think patches that fix regressions, even if > > they are not critical regressions, should also be allowed in. What are > > your thoughts on patches that fix non-critical regressions? (or perhaps > > a regression falls under your category of "really critical" by > > definition?) > > No, not all regressions are critical (e.g. if a workaround exists and the > regression is not in an important feature.) My rule of thumb would be to > allow patches that do only local code changes (i.e. could only break the > feature that has the regression anyway), and patches that change more > central code only if the regression is important.
I think this is a good rule of thumb. Thanks, Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
