spamassassin-dev September 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-dev archives
spamassassin-dev: Backport Question was Re: DRAFT TO-DO LIST PMC

Backport Question was Re: DRAFT TO-DO LIST PMC VOTE - September 30th 3.4.0 release candidate

From: Kevin A. McGrail <KMcGrail_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Sep 15 2011 - 18:24:17 GMT
To: darxus@chaosreigns.com

On 9/15/2011 1:13 PM, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 09/14, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> - Post-release, trunk and 3.4 branch will be kept in sync perfectly
>> and all programmers will write code with zero bugs ;-)
> So now, after 3.4 is branched from trunk in svn, you want *all* changes to
> trunk backported to 3.4, with two other people reviewing each?
Assuming with the use of the pronoun "you" that you mean the royal we,
i.e. the project, here's the project's standpoint:

- The SA project follows the ASF recommendation to use
Review-Then-Commit (R-T-C) methodology
(http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit) as we
are not in rapid development.
- The SA project branches from trunk for all major releases (i.e. 3.4,
3.3, 3.2)
- All branches are R-T-C
- Trunk is C-T-R but this changes near releases.
- All reviews follow the ASF Voting Rules at
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html which require at least 3 +1
votes and no vetoes.
- A person, if they are a committer, who attaches a patch for review is
considered a defacto +1 vote. Hence, they count as one of the 3 votes.
If someone who is not a committer attaches a patch for review, 3 votes
are still needed and theirs means nothing.
- Releases are made from branches not trunk

Anything deviating from the above requires a PMC vote and from recent
discussion you've seen on dev, that vote would likely go no where to
change the above status quo.

Regards,
KAM