|
@@ -51,3 +51,18 @@ review sessions take place on a weekly basis, more frequent if needed:
|
|
|
> a different procedure. Security releases are developed in a private
|
|
> a different procedure. Security releases are developed in a private
|
|
|
> repository, released and tested under embargo before they become
|
|
> repository, released and tested under embargo before they become
|
|
|
> publicly available.
|
|
> publicly available.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+## Deciding on the content of a patch release
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+When the criteria for moving forward with a patch release are met, the release
|
|
|
|
|
+manager will decide on the exact content of the release.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+- Fixes to all P0 issues *must* be included in the release.
|
|
|
|
|
+- Fixes to *some* P1, P2, and P3 issues *may* be included as part of the patch
|
|
|
|
|
+ release depending on the severity of the issue and the risk associated with
|
|
|
|
|
+ the patch.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+Any code delivered as part of a patch release should make life easier for a
|
|
|
|
|
+significant amount of users with zero chance of degrading anybody's experience.
|
|
|
|
|
+A good rule of thumb for that is to limit cherry-picking to small patches, which
|
|
|
|
|
+fix well-understood issues, and which come with verifiable tests.
|
Arnaud Porterie