Clarify cherry-pick candidates
This commit is contained in:
parent
bb2de367d3
commit
42002f6cce
|
@ -32,22 +32,23 @@ branches.
|
|||
|
||||
## What Kind of PRs are Good for Cherry Picks
|
||||
|
||||
Compared to the normal master branch's merge volume across time,
|
||||
the release branches see one or two orders of magnitude less PRs.
|
||||
This is because there is an order or two of magnitude higher scrutiny.
|
||||
Again, the emphasis is on critical bug fixes, e.g.,
|
||||
Patch releases must be easy and safe to consume, so security fixes
|
||||
and critical bugfixes can be delivered with minimal risk of regression.
|
||||
|
||||
- Loss of data
|
||||
- Memory corruption
|
||||
- Panic, crash, hang
|
||||
- Security
|
||||
Only the following types of changes are expected to be backported:
|
||||
|
||||
A bugfix for a functional issue (not a data loss or security issue) that only
|
||||
- Security fixes
|
||||
- Dependency updates that just aim to silence some scanners
|
||||
and do not fix any vulnerable code are **not** eligible for cherry-picks.
|
||||
- Regression fixes
|
||||
- Critical bug fixes (loss of data, memory corruption, panic, crash, hang)
|
||||
- A bugfix for a functional issue (not a data loss or security issue) that only
|
||||
affects an alpha feature does not qualify as a critical bug fix.
|
||||
- Prerequisite changes for critical dependency updates (e.g. [go updates](https://github.com/kubernetes/sig-release/blob/master/release-engineering/handbooks/go.md#minor-version-updates))
|
||||
- Test-only changes to stabilize failing / flaky tests on release branches
|
||||
|
||||
If you are proposing a cherry pick and it is not a clear and obvious critical
|
||||
bug fix, please reconsider. If upon reflection you wish to continue, bolster
|
||||
your case by supplementing your PR with e.g.,
|
||||
If you are proposing a cherry pick outside these categories, please reconsider.
|
||||
If upon reflection you wish to continue, bolster your case by supplementing your PR with e.g.,
|
||||
|
||||
- A GitHub issue detailing the problem
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -62,21 +63,6 @@ your case by supplementing your PR with e.g.,
|
|||
- Key stakeholder SIG reviewers/approvers attesting to their confidence in the
|
||||
change being a required backport
|
||||
|
||||
To illustrate the point, dependency updates that just aim to silence some scanners
|
||||
and do not fix any vulnerable code are NOT eligible for cherry-picks.
|
||||
|
||||
If the change is in cloud provider-specific platform code (which is in the
|
||||
process of being moved out of core Kubernetes), describe the customer impact,
|
||||
how the issue escaped initial testing, remediation taken to prevent similar
|
||||
future escapes, and why the change cannot be carried in your downstream fork of
|
||||
the Kubernetes project branches.
|
||||
|
||||
It is critical that our full community is actively engaged on enhancements in
|
||||
the project. If a released feature was not enabled on a particular provider's
|
||||
platform, this is a community miss that needs to be resolved in the `master`
|
||||
branch for subsequent releases. Such enabling will not be backported to the
|
||||
patch release branches.
|
||||
|
||||
## Initiate a Cherry Pick
|
||||
|
||||
### Before you begin
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue