db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: Bugs and 10.1.2 release
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:28:57 GMT
Kathey Marsden wrote:

> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am not clear how this has been done in the past: what is the process
>>for a contributor (who is not a committer) to get their patch into the
>>appropriate branches?  Do we depend upon the version that the bug was
>>reported in?  Should the contributor indicate what branches the patch
>>should be applied?  Is the contributor responsible for testing on each
>>branch and providing a separate patch for each branch?
> 
> 
> This was the process I proposed for 10.1.2
> 
>     --  Fixer fixes bug in the *trunk*
>     --  Fixer posts a patch and indicates if if they want the fix in 10.1.
>     --  Committer commits and objections to port can be raised based on risk.
>     --  Fixer tests change on 10,1 then posts svn merge command or 10.1 patch.
>     --  Committer applies the svn merge command and commits to 10.1

While this is a good process, it should not be seen as exclusive. Maybe
'recommended practice' would be a better term than 'process'?

A fixer may only care about fixing the bug in the trunk, it could be
someone else who cares about the fix being in a branch and thus performs
the merge and testing.

A fixer may only care about fixing a bug in a branch, because that's the
version they are using. There should be nothing in Derby's site that
prohibits such work. It's better to get the bug fixed somewhere than not
at all.

In the various recent questions/suggestions about process and other
related items it is worth remembering this is open source and thus:

  1) people do what 'scratches their itch'
  2) In general, you cannot require anyone to do anything

Dan.


Mime
View raw message