Hi Lenz: Based on my experience with how folks comply with the current backporting rules, I would not trust very many people (you are one of the exceptions!) to adhere to this rule that bugfixes should be merged into master after fixing in octopus. My expectation is that, once the a bug is fixed in octopus the second part (merging into master) will be forgotten in many cases. After all, as you say: that's the "actual branch that is currently used by the community" and once the bug is fixed there, the immediate thorn-in-the-side is gone! Another thing I have learned is that any rule, in order to be effective, must be policed. With the current horribly-imperfect-but-it's-what-we-have system, when someone opens a PR targeting nautilus and we see that it's "original research" (to borrow a term from Wikipedia), we immediately see that. Policing is relatively easy - we see at first glance that it's not a cherry-pick. Thanks to GitHub, we can easily click on the SHA1 and check if it's present in the master branch. It sounds like your proposed new system is expecting developers will always remember to forward-port to master *after* their bug has been fixed (or feature implemented). But is that a realistic expectation? Would it be prudent to include some reminder/enforcement mechanism? If so, how would it work? Nathan _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
