On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>wrote:
...OK, got it (the answer to my question just below) So I've a proposition : all bugs should be version rel_3_6, all ENH and bugs attached to ENH should be version rel_3_8 version "master" being dedicated to ENH that still haven't made their way to rel_3_8. So you could find all bugs that needs backporting : all patches attached to rel_3_6 !
So let us say I create an ENH request for an enhancement 'foo.' 1. I open an ENH bug against 'master' for 'foo.' 2. I do development work and attach a patch to the ENH bug. 3. The patch passes through all QA hoops (English-ism suspected). 4. The RM pushes the ENH and moves it to 'rel_3_8'. 5. A bug is discovered and a bug report opened against 'rel_3_8.' 6. <normal-bug-workflow-stuff-goes-here> Now, let us say I discover bug 'bar' in rel_3_8 and in rel_3_6. 1. I open a bug report against 'rel_3_8' for bug 'bar.' 2. I fix 'bar' and attach a patch to the bug. 3. The fix passes QA. 4. The RM pushes the patch and moves it to 'rel_3_6' if applicable. (But he has to have this knowledge somehow.) That is ok as long as it works out in practice. It would probably be better to have a way for the bug reporter to indicate *all* branches to which the bug applies, but I don't know if this is possible. Perhaps Ian can comment on that. Kind Regards, Chris