Re: What's our official stance on small self-contained additions in a micro version

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > > I know that our official release process allows that, but there are some > > reasonable arguments against doing that and this topic was brought up > > multiple times related to specific fixes. > > Adding an option I think it's ok provided it's not controversial and not > an attempt to create entirely different large functionality hidden > behind the option (e.g. "let's add an option to make mysql_connect also > connect to Postgres databases"). If it's something that clearly a small > functional piece that is missing, adding it I think is OK. If it's > bigger (like entirely new functionality or substantial change in > existing one) then it'd be better to go into next version. > > > I would like to know if we can come up with a rule which can have > > consensus behind it, and maybe formalize it as an extension to our > > current releaseprocess rfc. > > I'm not sure there's a formal rule that would be good for all cases. We > can have guidelines but unless we reject all changes completely (which I > strongly disagree with) I think we'll still have to consider them on the > substance. > > even agreeing upon something like adding features in a micro version needs a format RFC and a 2/3 vote would allow us to have a conservative default while we could still make exceptions with a clear process to follow. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu