📖 Simplify our backport policy #10583
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/documentation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
I'm +1 to simplify rules, it is a way to recognize that more of 60% of contributions in the last year came from 5 top maintainers, and in some respects, it seems that nowadays those rules apply only to the same persons that are defining them (which is overkilling). Also introducing some flexibility can act as incentive for other folks to contribute, because the time to get the feature in a release can be shortened if maintainers agree on the backport. I'm just wondering we should keep existing rules as examples / reference instead of dropping them entirely, we put a lot of effort in getting agreement on those in the past |
The current rules & regulations are highly restrictive; with past experiences in mind usually is up to maintainers to determine if something can and should be backported. The sole exception is breaking changes which aren't allowed across the board when backporting to released versions. Signed-off-by: Vince Prignano <vince@prigna.com>
vincepri
force-pushed
the
simple-backport-policy
branch
from
503d65b
to
19f1ac2
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: da103bcec43919a403f746d2ed5eaf14fb75eacc
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
The current rules & regulations are highly restrictive; with past experiences in mind usually is up to maintainers to determine if something can and should be backported. The sole exception is breaking changes which aren't allowed across the board when backporting to released versions.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #
/area documentation