We heavily invested in code now on master. Not looking forward to backporting that.
mobile dev with bilingual spelling checker used (read at your own risk) Op 17 apr. 2015 21:02 schreef "Marcus" <shadow...@gmail.com>: > 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 >
