Well, would we just swap the last release branch with master? Master is the dev branch, and the last release is really what we have as a stable branch.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com> wrote: >>> >>> Today during the CloudStackdays we did a round table about Release >>> management targeting the next 4.6 releases. >>> >>> >>> Quick bullet point discussions: >>> >>> ideas to change release planning >>> >>> - Plugin contribution is complicated because often a new plugin involve >>> change on the core: >>> - ex: storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code >>> - There is an idea of going on a 2 weeks release model which could >>> introduce issue the database schema. >>> - Database schema version should be different then the application >>> version. >>> - There is a will to enforce git workflow in 4.6 and trigger simulator >>> job on PullRequest. >>> - Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of >>> supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release (4.3.x, 4.4.x, >>> 4.5.x). But the current level of confidence against latest release is low, >>> so that need to be improved. >>> >>> >>> So, the main messages is that w'd like to improve the release velocity, and >>> release branch stability. so we would like to propose few change in the >>> way we would add code to the 4.6 branch as follow: >>> >>> - All new contribution to 4.6 would be thru Pull Request or merge request, >>> which would trigger a simulator job, ideally only if that pass the PR would >>> be accepted and automatically merged. At this time, I think we pretty much >>> have everything in place to do that. At a first step we would use >>> simulator+marvin jobs then improve tests coverage from there. >> >> +1 >> >> We do need to realize what this means and be all fine with it. >> >> It means that if someone who is not RM directly commits to the release >> branch, the commit will be reverted. >> And that from the beginning of the branching… > I agree and we can even go as far as reverting fixes that are > cherry-picked in favour of merged forward. > >> >> IMHO, I think this would be a good step but I don’t think it goes far enough. > Agreed here as well but let's take the step while discussing further > steps and not implement to much process as well > >> >> This still uses a paradigm where a release is made from a release branch >> that was started from an unstable development branch. >> Hence you still need *extensive* QA. > The problem here is that there is no stable point to fork from at the > moment. We will get there and we shouldn't stop taking steps in that > direction. > >> >> If we truly want to release faster, we need to release from the same QA’d >> branch time after time….a release needs to be based on a previous release >> >> Basically, we need a rolling release cycle. That will have the added benefit >> to not leave releases behind and have to focus on backporting. >> >>> >>> Please comments :-) >> > > > > -- > Daan
