Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

doc: remove outdated COLLABORATOR_GUIDE sentence about breaking changes #25780

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

doc: remove outdated COLLABORATOR_GUIDE sentence about breaking changes #25780

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 0 additions & 1 deletion COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -282,7 +282,6 @@ providing a Public API in such cases.
* Resolving critical security issues.
* Fixing a critical bug (e.g. fixing a memory leak) requires a breaking
change.
* There is TSC consensus that the change is required.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the authority was delegated to the Release WG, then shouldn't this be s/TSC/Release WG/?

We have policies so that there is predictability and transparency to the decisions made by the responsible people, but those people ultimately have the right to break those policies, if as a group they decide its the right thing to do. The planned openssl 1.1.1 update in the 10.x release line for example best fits the bullet being removed here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sam-github Yes and no. I'd say it's a bigger change than that. All these bullet points should probably be replaced with a statement that what ends up in LTS/Current is up to Release WG, with a link to where Release WG documents their requirements. I'm doing things iteratively, though, because small and focused changes to this document seem to be things we can talk about and land, but big changes run a bigger risk of being stalled. (Not sure if that was my experience with this doc or elsewhere, but it's definitely A Thing.)

So my plan is: First, remove this bullet point because it's wrong. Then replace the remaining stuff with a link to Release WG material--probably https://github.com/nodejs/Release#release-plan but maybe there's something even better somewhere? And there may be other steps too. But those are the next two. :-D

* If a breaking commit does accidentally land in a Current or LTS branch, an
attempt to fix the issue will be made before the next release; If no fix is
provided then the commit will be reverted.
Expand Down