It seems to me the question is who do we want doing the heavy lifting on patches. I see it this way: If we have a patches30@koha.org the heavy lifting will have to be done by the submitters. They will have to make sure their patches can be applied to the 3.0.x branch cleanly. For those of us working on HEAD it will mean some duplication of work as we will have a patch for HEAD which we will then have to cherry-pick into our own copy of the 3.0.x branch to make sure it applies cleanly before then submitting the ported patch. This is what I have been doing with my own work. Luckly most of my work so far has cherry-picked cleanly, and I only have to push it out. If we don't have a seperate email list for 3.0.x then the heavy lifting will have to be done by the Release Maintainer. They will have to watch the submissions to the patches list, pick ones that should be applied to the 3.0.x branch, and then do the work of porting (resolving and testing). I figure the RM will be doing some of this anyway as some developers or patches should be applied to both branches. The key would be to make sure developers identify either in the subject or at the top of the body of the patch that it is meant for the 3.0.x branch. That's the way I see it, my 2 cents. Mike Hafen On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:04 +0200, Paul POULAIN wrote:

Hello,

atm, all patches are sent to patches@koha.org They are supposed to be relevant for HEAD. but : how will we deal with patches that are 3.0 only ?

For example : updates of the french translation. They are 3.0 specific, and can't be merged in HEAD. In a few weeks, I think we will have some bugs that are 3.0 only, and irrelevant in head (due to some structure/code/features changes)

so, how will we deal with those ? I once suggested to have a patches30@koha.org mailbox, this proposal has not been accepted. But I come back with the general idea, as I think it's something we will face quickly. So, any idea welcomed...