-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
meta: clarify process for breaking changes #7955
Conversation
/cc @nodejs/ctc |
Lgtm |
Breaking changes (that is, pull requests that require an increase in the | ||
major version number, known as `semver-major` changes) must be elevated for | ||
review by the CTC. This does not necessarily mean that the PR must be put onto | ||
the CTC meeting agenda. If multiple CTC members approve (`LGTM`) the PR and no |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does the "multiple" mean ">= 2 CTC members"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. More than one.
The main part LGTM, but I have a question about «trivial changes» (commented inline). |
(A priori assumption: small incremental changes > big non-incremental changes.) I think some pragmatism around the 48/72 hour rule is necessary because it discourages small incremental changes. It becomes much more attractive to pile up everything in big potpourri pull requests - something I've been guilty of - but that makes code reviews and release management more difficult. I wouldn't mind dropping the 48 hour rule. If one or two maintainers sign off on a pull request and the CI is green, it should be good to go, right? |
IMHO I'd prefer to keep the 48/72 hour rule. It gives interested parties a chance to chime in on changes that they may feel strongly about. I also recall instances where code changes were landed too quickly (talking non-security issues here) and those changes ended up causing problems of varying degrees... |
Yea, IIRC we implemented that rule because changes were landing too fast. I'm +1 on keeping the rule, with the exception of doc changes (and maybe changes that have broken CI or something that needs a quick revert?). It's hard, because if we have the rule, and the rule has exceptions, those should be perfectly clear. |
I'm in favor of keeping the 48/72 rule, if for no other reason than it provides time for our global group of contributors to catch up and properly review the changes. |
LGTM. |
LGTM |
1 similar comment
LGTM |
Thinking out loud: it might make sense to introduce new |
LGTM |
There seems to be consensus, so last call for objections! I'll land in approximately 12 hours or so unless someone swoops in to say this is terrible or something. |
Fixes: nodejs#7848 PR-URL: nodejs#7955 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Landed in e3e3588 |
Fixes: #7848 PR-URL: #7955 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Fixes: #7848 PR-URL: #7955 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Fixes: #7848 PR-URL: #7955 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Fixes: #7848 PR-URL: #7955 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Fixes: #7848 PR-URL: #7955 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
meta
Description of change
Fixes: #7848