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