Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> writes: > (Dropping Leo, since it doesn't affect him. He's already subscribed to > the list.) > > On 6 April 2018 at 19:20, Mark Janes <mark.a.ja...@intel.com> wrote: > >> I agree with you, however our release process still has a gap. We >> (Intel) test commits on master, and file bugs when we find them in i965 >> or other components. >> >> If those commits already have a stable tag in the commit message, they >> will be shipped at a later date directly to customers, with no testing. >> There is no way to blacklist broken patches in our Mesa's release >> automation. >> > That's why I mentioned that the process cannot be fully automated ;-) > > Let me try to explain slightly differently. Amongst others you want: > > a) 24h (ish) buffer (getting closer to 0, as we reach the pre-release > announcement) before landing fix in the stable branch. > > We had broken _badly_ a few multiple times, a balance between the two > is essential. > > Looking at it from Jenkins POV: > You don't want to test/bisect that master is broken, only to apply > same patch and run Jenkins on the same broken patch. > > - when issues to happen for example: fdo#103626 currently there's two > ways to handle it > > 1) add the commit to bin/.cherry-ignore. latter of which means that > you miss the patch when it's actually fixed up. > See a094314340387ef2463ed8b4ddc9317bc539832b for context.
You are right. We can just add the commit to .cherry-ignore files in affected branches when the bug bisects to something with a stable tag. > 2) carefully/manually git cherry-pick > Doing this allowed me to add the regression to the tracker, as > otherwise we would have missed it for 18.0.0 ;-) > > Yet we could introduce on-hold list to cherry-ignore. It's fairly trivial. > > > Hope that makes things a bit clearer. > > -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
