Re: [Ganglia-developers] backports

[Brad N. <BNI...@no...>]

>>> On 7/28/2009 at 7:03 AM, in message <4A6...@po...>, Daniel
Pocock <da...@po...> wrote:

> 
> 
> Is it preferred to raise backport proposals for 3.1 all in a single 
> email, or start a separate thread for each?
> 
> I've just fixed bug 237, this is an essential backport I believe, as it 
> fixes a seg fault/coding error. (trunk r2006)
> 
> My fix for bug 232 is also backwards compatible and safe to backport 
> now, thanks to a configuration option that allows people to decide when 
> they want to adopt the new behavior.  I believe that backporting this to 
> 3.1 provides people with the opportunity to migrate to lowercase 
> hostname directories independently of when they migrate to 3.2 or 
> trunk.  (trunk r2004 and r2005 contain this fix)
> 

IMO, starting separate threads would be preferable.  That way if we have to go back into the email archives to review any discussion, it will be easier to find.  Also, it is a good idea to put the backport into the STATUS file for the 3.1 branch so that we can track what has been backported.  For an explanation of how to use the STATUS file, please see http://ganglia.wiki.sourceforge.net/how_project_works .  Describing and noting the backport in the STATUS file just makes it easier for us to compile a list of what changed when we do the next release.  Make sure that you follow the backporting guidelines that are posted on the wiki with the most important guideline being "don't break backward compatibility" :)  

Brad