Can you sync with Rohit, who is merging the noawsapi stuff as well..
> On May 6, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can have a look at the merge of 4.5.1 and am willing to be one of the
> RMs, not to be the RM!
>
> Op wo 6 mei 2015 om 09:47 schreef sebgoa <run...@gmail.com>:
>
>> So no -1 on this.
>>
>> Do we have volunteers to RM 4.6 on the master branch ?
>>
>> I propose to set a date asap, tag master and tell everyone that starting
>> from that tag all commits to master except from RM will be reverted.
>>
>> will need to make sure that all of 4.5.1 is in master
>>
>> -sebastien
>>
>>
>> On May 1, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's not do more quality improvement proces but just improve quality. If
>>> anybody want to add to the pages on the wiki, you're welkom but nobody
>> did
>>> for long time. +1 for the present state of Sebastien's views on things.
>> We
>>> can refine at any time.
>>>
>>> Op vr 1 mei 2015 om 09:55 schreef sebgoa <run...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 1, 2015, at 12:52 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> In my mind it was kind of making more sense to start by keeping 4.6
>> into
>>>> a
>>>>> separate branch, enforce pull-requests and deploy the CI. smaller step
>>>> but
>>>>> faster result, and from there, once we get stable with the CI
>>>>
>>>> I hear you.
>>>>
>>>> But we have waited for way too long for better CI. I see great efforts
>> in
>>>> that direction.
>>>> But I personally do not want to wait any longer to make a move.
>>>>
>>>> We do open source, we should have fun, take risks, move fast, fail fast,
>>>> recover etc….
>>>>
>>>> so let's JFDI
>>>>
>>>>> and git flow;
>>>>> move into master, do fastest releases cycle. If we consider we can do
>> all
>>>>> that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you
>>>> say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6
>>>> release ?
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we
>>>> can improve a bit on the QA then we win.
>>>> Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I can help
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can do this proposal on email..and once we have consensus write it up
>>>> for archive in the wiki.
>>>> If we move to the wiki now, this effort is going to die.
>>>>
>>>>> Seb: doesn't the vote would confirm the consensus?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if we have consensus no need for vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Raja: do we have any documentation somewhere on how to use, contribute
>>>> to
>>>>> the smoke test? that could be our start for the CI tests?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After reviewing the history as mentioned by Daan, unless we propose
>>>>>>> and vote on a newer workflow model I think the best we can do is to
>>>>>>> simply be more strict about commits to master. They all need to be
>>>>>>> merges that have been tested against master before merge. This will
>> in
>>>>>>> theory make master more stable, but doesn't really change the
>> workflow
>>>>>>> we've already agreed upon and have been working under (although
>>>>>>> bugfixes sometimes were not coming in from branches, and
>> cherry-picked
>>>>>>> bugfixes from branches will need to go into a branch first, tested
>>>>>>> against master, and merged to master). We can essentially set a date
>>>>>>> and do that any time, with some advance notice that direct commits
>>>>>>> will be reverted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes +1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Set a date
>>>>>> -Tag master for reference
>>>>>> -Find a volunteer or two to RM master
>>>>>> -automatic revert on master if not from RM
>>>>>> -all commits to master come from PR, need clear review and green tests
>>>>>> -harden master (basic QA process), release 4.6 as a tag on master
>>>>>> -all features and fixes need to be made on branches or forks and onus
>> is
>>>>>> on devs to rebase to master
>>>>>> -brings everyone onto 4.6 (make sure we have upgrade paths from 4.3,
>>>> 4.4,
>>>>>> etc)
>>>>>> -from there forward only maintain a linear release through master
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to add, tweak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: No need to vote if we have consensus. Taking a clue from ASF
>>>> members,
>>>>>> votes should be avoided at all cost, they mean that we do not have
>> clear
>>>>>> consensus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <
>> run...@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have they diverged that much? Due to cherry-picking, I guess.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise you should be able to do it cleanly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a good opportunity to do this next release. Instead of
>>>>>>>>> creating a release branch, we freeze master and start creating dev
>>>>>>>>> branches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This just amounts to treating master now like a release branch.
>>>> Getting
>>>>>> back to PL suggestion, that means
>>>>>>>> that any commit to master would be through a PR or MERGE request on
>>>> the
>>>>>> ML. Anything else will be reverted by the RM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcus, do you feel like writing down a little process for this and
>>>>>> some dates that we can target.
>>>>>>>> It would be nice to do this for 4.6.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Daan Hoogland <
>>>>>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
