On Sep 22, 2012, at 15:24 , Fabien Potencier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/22/12 9:19 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> On 21.09.2012, at 08:45, Fabien Potencier >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> * merging 2.0 into 2.1 is a major PITA (just for me actually) as all the >>> tests were moved in 2.1, and because the form framework evolved a lot as >>> well, so it takes me more and more time to merge 2.0 into 2.1; >>> >>> * we can decide to keep the 2 months period but still accept security fixes >>> for a longer period of time (6 months). >> >> we talked about changing the merging policy in Denver. ie. we would merge >> bug fixes to master and then merge it down ro previous releases. i dont >> remember the pros and cons we listes back then. but it might become more >> necessary to enable delegation of responsibility. > > I think the current worflow is the best one as we can check very easily which > patches/PRs are merged in which branches. So, I don't think that changing > this strategy would be good. yes .. but if the current approach means everything for all branches needs to go through you, then we have a scalability issue. even if some things might be slowed down but then having the option to delegate work to multiple people, we might still have a higher "through put". regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith [email protected] -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to security at symfony-project.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
