Tree Rules/comm-central: Difference between revisions

Tree Rules/comm-central (view source)

327 bytes added , 20 November 2009

canmove, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti

3,628

edits

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 Note: wanted and blocking bugs do '''not''' approve a patch for check in.
-Patches that are looking for approval should land on trunk before requesting approval and preferably should have some baking time where testers can find issues.
+Patches for approval must:
-When requesting approval, please state the (stability) risk this patch poses and the reason we need to take it for the 3.0.* release series.
+* Not affect strings in mail/locales and editor/ui.
+* Land on trunk before requesting approval. Preferably to have some time baking before approval is requested.
+* Be accompanied by a risk assessment as to the risk the patch poses and the reason we need to take it for the 3.0.* security releases when the approval is requested.
-Patches that are tidy up only or high risk will most likely be rejected.
+Patches are unlikely to be accepted if:
-Patches that have unit tests are more likely to be accepted. Unit tests may be requested in particular cases.
+* They are not affecting security or stability (in the first couple of point releases this may be relaxed by drivers if there are fixes for significant regressions).
+* They are high risk.
+* They have no tests (some patches may be accepted without tests if there is a good reason why there aren't any, and if they can be demonstrated to be well-tested, if you need support for writing tests, please ask in #maildev).
 Please ask on #maildev if you have questions.