Signed-off-by: Arnaud Porterie <arnaud.porterie@docker.com>
| ... | ... |
@@ -51,3 +51,18 @@ review sessions take place on a weekly basis, more frequent if needed: |
| 51 | 51 |
> a different procedure. Security releases are developed in a private |
| 52 | 52 |
> repository, released and tested under embargo before they become |
| 53 | 53 |
> publicly available. |
| 54 |
+ |
|
| 55 |
+## Deciding on the content of a patch release |
|
| 56 |
+ |
|
| 57 |
+When the criteria for moving forward with a patch release are met, the release |
|
| 58 |
+manager will decide on the exact content of the release. |
|
| 59 |
+ |
|
| 60 |
+- Fixes to all P0 issues *must* be included in the release. |
|
| 61 |
+- Fixes to *some* P1, P2, and P3 issues *may* be included as part of the patch |
|
| 62 |
+ release depending on the severity of the issue and the risk associated with |
|
| 63 |
+ the patch. |
|
| 64 |
+ |
|
| 65 |
+Any code delivered as part of a patch release should make life easier for a |
|
| 66 |
+significant amount of users with zero chance of degrading anybody's experience. |
|
| 67 |
+A good rule of thumb for that is to limit cherry-picking to small patches, which |
|
| 68 |
+fix well-understood issues, and which come with verifiable tests. |