Open Stack

Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:

> Rossella Sblendido <rsblendido at suse.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks Ihar for the etherpad and for raising this point.
>> .
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2015 06:18 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> just wanted to note that the etherpad page [1] with backport candidates
>>> has a lot of work for those who have cycles for backporting relevant
>>> pieces to Liberty (and Kilo for High+ bugs), so please take some on your
>>> plate and propose backports, then clean up from the page. And please
>>> don’t hesitate to check the page for more worthy patches in the future.
>>>
>>> It can’t be a one man army if we want to run the initiative in long term.
>>
>> I completely agree, it can't be one man army.
>> I was thinking that maybe we can be even more proactive.
>> How about adding as requirement for a bug fix to be merged to have the  
>> backport to relevant branches? I think that could help
>
> I don’t think it will work. First, not everyone should be required to  
> care about stable branches. It’s my belief that we should avoid formal  
> requirements that mechanically offload burden from stable team to those  
> who can’t possible care less about master.

Of course I meant ‘about stable branches’.

Ihar