Jonas, There may not be sufficient resources available prior to the opening of the window. So, this is a signal to the infra/CI team to be prepared to support CI on both master and stable branch. However, perhaps we could consider expanding the window from 1 week to, say 2 weeks.
David On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Bjurel <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t see why we need a OPNFV policy on when earliest a stable branch > could happen – please explain! > > BR/Jonas > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David McBride > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:58 PM > *To:* Christopher Price <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] > D-release schedule > > > > I think that we've reduced the branch-related overhead in 'Danube' by > closing the stable branch window just 10 days before the release, as > opposed to about a month with Colorado. My concern about individual > projects deciding whether to branch is that I think that it creates some > confusion about the location of the candidate release. I think it's > simpler and more predictable if we have a common process for all projects > participating in the release. > > > > David > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Christopher Price <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We are making some progress. > > While I do agree with this: “I think projects should have autonomy over > when branches are created.”. > I also think it is up to the release project to set the projects with the > latest date to do it if they want to participate in any given release. I > think that’s essentially what we are trying to tune and optimize for > everyone in this dialog. > > / Chris > > > On 13/09/16 16:10, "Dave Neary" <opnfv-tech-discuss-bounces@ > lists.opnfv.org on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 09/13/2016 06:42 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote: > > one thing that we’ve not closed on in the discussion last Tuesday is > the > > stable-branching milestone. Per what Morgan and I elaborated on: > > Branching occurs a lot of unnecessary overhead for projects which > have a > > single development stream only. Hence I’d like to propose that > > > > · the branching milestones **prior** to the release should > > **only** be applied to projects which do parallel development. > > > > · All other projects would branch on the release date – so > that we > > have a proper maintenance branch. > > > > Thoughts? > > I'm in favour of anything that removes process overhead from projects - > I think projects should have autonomy over when branches are created. > > Thanks, > Dave. > > -- > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > > > > > -- > > *David McBride* > > Release Manager, OPNFV > > Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 > > Email/Google Talk: [email protected] > > Skype: davidjmcbride1 > > IRC: dmcbride > -- *David McBride* Release Manager, OPNFV Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 Email/Google Talk: [email protected] Skype: davidjmcbride1 IRC: dmcbride
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
