Members
- @ckerr
- @codebytere
- @deepak1556
- @deermichel
- @erickzhao
- @marshallofsound
- @sofianguy
- @zcbenz
Visitors None
- (@codebytere) Should we specific varying levels of release line support in our public documentation?
- Verdict: YES
- Do we want to accept backports to security-only supported branches (e.g. v3.0.0)?
- This is a debate between a desire to ensure end-users upgrade and a desire to not unintentionally hurt teams with lack of backwidth to maintain parity.
- Every app has different resources and process for upgrades
- This is a debate between a desire to ensure end-users upgrade and a desire to not unintentionally hurt teams with lack of backwidth to maintain parity.
- #18554 feat: Add option to conditionally disable site instance patches
- Previously approved, but officially noted as approved in this meeting.
- #18757 @MarshallOfSound <-- 3/4/5/6 :D
- Approved for 3/4/5/6
- #18756 fix: throw error on invalid URLs when setting cookie (@erickzhao)
- Approved with some reservations about changing the resolve/reject behavior of promises in stabilization branches.
- This is less significant here since it will be triggered only on client code that was already broken
- Will be approved on GH after some stylistic changes are performed.
- Approved with some reservations about changing the resolve/reject behavior of promises in stabilization branches.
Nota Bene: If you are the requester, you are generally expected to attend the meeting. If you are unable to do so, please state your reason for requesting the backport.
- @codebytere to PR in release line support specification to support doc
- Return to #18737 following coordination with Upgrades WG