I agree with Brad. Let’s not blow this out of proportion. I don’t foresee very deep work on new patches. It is mostly picking patches from those done since that version so there has already been a decent level of scrutiny. Also we could have “lts” and “lts-candidate” branches so the patches can go to lts-candidate first and if the interested parties (to be determined) give their ok then the patch is applied to lts too.
Marc
On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:39 PM, Bradley Lucier lucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
On 07/13/2016 11:00 PM, Adam wrote:
I'm thinking a particular "LTS maintenance protocol" should be devised for the LTS branch, something like that:
- After the initial formative phase the next 3-4 months, the
introduction of a _rule_ that a _pull request must be quarantained for 90 days_ and be _OK-ed by at least three people, *ON* the emailing list_.
And perhaps that the pull request must be taken through some specified build, testing and code analysis tools.
I often get the feeling that there aren't three people on the mailing list qualified to give an opinion on a specific patch, whether they wanted to or not. (I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the majority of Marc's patches.)
Perhaps we should just give the UBC people whatever they want to start, and then work out protocols after we see what might be working.
Brad