Backports to 1.1.1 and what is allowed

[Matt Caswell]

On 25/06/2020 15:33, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> In light of how the discussion evolved I would say that not only there
> is consensus on supporting the definition of a detailed policy on
> backports and the definitions of what are the requirements for regular
> releases vs LTS releases (other than the longer support timeframe),
> but also highlights a need to do it sooner rather than later!
> 
> This seems a job for the OMC, as it falls under:
> 
>> makes all decisions regarding management and strategic direction of the project; including:
>> - business requirements;
>> - feature requirements;
>> - platform requirements;
>> - roadmap requirements and priority;
>> - end-of-life decisions;
>> - release timing and requirement decisions;
> 
> My contribution to the discussion is to ask if the OMC has plans for
> addressing this in the very short term.

I think its unlikely we are going to get to a policy in the short term.
It seems to me we are still some way away from a consensus here.

> If working on a policy is going to be a medium-term effort, maybe it
> would be opportune to call an OTC vote specific to #11968 under the
> current release requirements defined by the OMC (or lack thereof).

11968 is already merged and, AFAIK, no one has proposed reverting it. If
such a PR was raised then a vote might be a way forward for it.

11188 is the more pressing problem because that is currently unmerged
and stuck. That has an OTC hold on it (placed there by me), so an OTC
vote seems appropriate. If a vote is held it should be to decide whether
backporting it is consistent with our current understanding of the
policy such as it is. It is for the OMC to decide whether a different
policy should be introduced at some point in the future.

Matt


> 
> We already saw a few comments in favor of evaluating backporting
> #11968 as an exception, in light of the supporting arguments, even if
> it was in conflict with the current policy understanding or the
> upcoming policy formulation.
> So if we could swiftly agree on this being an OTC or OMC vote, I would
> urge to have a dedicated discussion/vote specific to #11968, while
> more detailed policies and definitions are in the process of being
> formulated.
> 
> - What is the consensus on splitting the 2 discussions?
> - If splitting the discussions, is deciding on #11968 an OTC or OMC matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nicola
>