Skip to content

chore: discuss Backport criteria #22765

@comphead

Description

@comphead

Originally raised by @mbutrovich

The current release_management.md documents the mechanics of backporting (cherry-pick, PR title, examples) but does not state which kinds of changes are appropriate for a release branch — only the general line "Only targeted, low-risk fixes should be added."

This leaves contributors and release managers re-litigating the same case-by-case questions on every patch release (Is this perf fix in scope? What about a refactor that fixes a latent bug? A new error message?), and the answers are not discoverable to first-time backporters.

This proposal adds a written Backport Criteria section - modeled on Apache Spark's versioning policy that enumerates what is eligible, what is not recommended, how behavior-changing fixes are handled, and who decides. The goal is to set a clear, predictable bar for release branches, reduce churn during stabilization, and make the release manager's gatekeeping role explicit rather than tacit.

The proposal is a easy start doc, ported from Apache Spark, however we need to consider DataFusion family of downstream projects

FYI @milenkovicm @gabotechs @andygrove @timsaucer @adriangb

The context:

Originally posted by @comphead in #21080

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    development-processRelated to development process of DataFusiondocumentationImprovements or additions to documentation

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions