Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

ache.org>" Date: Wednesday 16 September 2015 10:07 To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release Based on some discussion from slack, I think there is no harm in experimenting this for let’s say 2

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

I think you are being an optimist saying 2-4 weeks but I second the attempt. +1 On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Based on some discussion from slack, I think there is no harm in > experimenting this for let’s say 2-4 weeks; at worst we would have blocked > people from mergi

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

Then we create a 4.6.0 branch, fix all of it and allow people to continue to merge broken code on master. Once we merge 4.6 back to master, most probably the 4.6 stuff won’t work anymore. I have seen it before. I would still say +1 for the freeze and suggest that we get the contributors aligned

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

Based on some discussion from slack, I think there is no harm in experimenting this for let’s say 2-4 weeks; at worst we would have blocked people from merging new features etc. Remi/Rajani - do you think we can pull this off (fix blockers and do a 4.6.0 release) in next 2-4 weeks? On 16-Sep-2

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rohit Yadav > wrote: > >> 1. Only BLOCKER fixes to master. If there's something else that needs to >> get in, it can be discussed with the RMs on a case-by-case basis. >> >> >> -1 -ish >> What you’re eff

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > 1. Only BLOCKER fixes to master. If there's something else that needs to > get in, it can be discussed with the RMs on a case-by-case basis. > > > -1 -ish > What you’re effectively saying is to freeze/block master from new changes > until 4.6.

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

On 16-Sep-2015, at 11:47 am, Rajani Karuturi mailto:raj...@apache.org>> wrote: Here is what we propose: 1. Only BLOCKER fixes to master. If there's something else that needs to get in, it can be discussed with the RMs on a case-by-case basis. -1 -ish What you’re effectively saying is to freeze

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

I just replied the other email about the VRs, where I actually mentioned the current mess that our github is due to the number of PRs and lack of proper reviews. So, +100 for that approach! If one cannot test a PR, so do not LGTM it! I would also add that a PR shall contain: 1. Jira ticket 2.

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

I totally agree with this proposal. By the way, until there is a reliable CI build, PR reviews should always follow point 2. Cheers, \ Miguel Ferreira mferre...@schubergphilis.com On 16 Sep 2015, at 08:17, Rajani Karuturi mailto:raj...@apache.org>> wr

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

I agree with our esteemed RMs and want to add that it might be usefull to mark any PR with [4.6] or [future] so it is clear to everybody what it is intended for. On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > Hi all, > There is little progress on 4.6 blockers this week. To release 4.6