On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:32:15PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> writes:
>
> > This document has two different kinds of text:
> >
> > - The first sections of the document, "Release Strategy" and "Release
> > Numbering", describe what we've already been doing for most of the
> > history of Open vSwitch. If there is anything surprising in them,
> > then it's because our process has not been transparent enough, and not
> > because we're making a change.
> >
> > - The final section of the document, "Release Scheduling", is a proposal
> > for current and future releases. We have not had a regular release
> > schedule in the past, but it seems important to have one in the
> > future, so this section requires review and feedback from everyone in
> > the community.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> > ---
>
> I like the document overall.
>
> Two things that may or may not need clarification:
>
> 1. Consensus is mentioned multiple times - is it expected that this
> discussion would take place on ovs-dev?
Yes, that's the main place I'd expect it.
I've now added a little clarification by updating the end of the first
paragraph:
This document describes the process ordinarily used for Open vSwitch
development and release. Exceptions are sometimes necessary, so all
of the statements here should be taken as subject to change through
rough consensus of Open vSwitch contributors, obtained through public
discussion on, e.g., ovs-dev or the #openvswitch IRC channel.
> I haven't seen it happen on announce, dev, or discuss (though I'll
> admit I only went through them briefly).
To date, we haven't done a good job making this a public and transparent
process. This aims to improve that.
> The only other time consensus is discussed in the documentation for
> ovs is under SECURITY.md, where the mailing list for such discussion
> takes place, and participation criteria, etc.
Right.
> 2. For the mentioned case of features close to the branch date, what is
> the protocol for getting them in? Again it was consensus, but is the
> approach to simply mail ovs-dev with "[backport]" tag identifying the
> upstream commits? Should we state that in the submissions if we're
> close to the deadline (I just submitted two series close to the
> branch deadline, so I'm more interested in this answer).
The protocol is to start a discussion. We don't really use tags on
ovs-dev (other than [PATCH]), but you're welcome to start such a
tradition.
For a straightforward series that is already posted weeks before the
branch, I don't think there's a need to start a discussion. This is
really about features that risk being left behind because of what is
essentially a race between the series and an arbitrary branch date.
> Otherwise, I really like the cadence outlined, and the prose flows well.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
