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

meta: clarify process for breaking changes #7955

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

meta: clarify process for breaking changes #7955

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1f79460
meta: clarify process for breaking changes
Trott Aug 3, 2016
ec50bf7
squash: remove unrelated change
Trott Aug 3, 2016
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
12 changes: 10 additions & 2 deletions COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -60,12 +60,20 @@ and work schedules. Trivial changes (e.g. those which fix minor bugs
or improve performance without affecting API or causing other
wide-reaching impact) may be landed after a shorter delay.

Where there is no disagreement amongst Collaborators, a pull request
may be landed given appropriate review. Where there is discussion
For non-breaking changes, if there is no disagreement amongst Collaborators, a
pull request may be landed given appropriate review. Where there is discussion
amongst Collaborators, consensus should be sought if possible. The
lack of consensus may indicate the need to elevate discussion to the
CTC for resolution (see below).

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
Copy link
Contributor

@yorkie yorkie Aug 3, 2016 •
edited
Loading

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"?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. More than one.

Collaborators oppose the PR, it can be landed. Where there is disagreement among
CTC members or objections from one or more Collaborators, `semver-major` pull
requests should be put on the CTC meeting agenda.

All bugfixes require a test case which demonstrates the defect. The
test should *fail* before the change, and *pass* after the change.

Expand Down