-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/09/2014 02:54 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 09:48:45PM +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>> This makes a lot of sense. However there are some times (and the
>> current one is one of those) where a wider gap is
On 9 Apr 2014, at 15:08 , James Henstridge
wrote:
>
> Things would be a lot simpler if we could use the trunk branch as we
> did before and have the CI Train process manage a separate production
> branch.
I strongly agree with this. In addition, it is awfully easy to submit an MR to
the wrong
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Imho that will still get us into a state where trunk has gazillion of
> changes and is not releasable.
> And one would have to pick the trunk apart into a landing.
It's in nobody's interest for what's in trunk and what's deployed in
th
Hi Alberto,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 09:48:45PM +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> This makes a lot of sense. However there are some times (and the current
> one is one of those) where a wider gap is IMHO legitimate: when the
> current development release is in feature freeze and the new development
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Alberto Mardegan
wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 07:30 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> On this topic, we will scheduled a CI call later this week where the
>> next steps from UDS will be one more time revisited and then planned
>> out; jfunk will probably send a summary after t
On 04/08/2014 07:51 PM, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 15:30 +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>> In the last 5 minutes of the session, a solution was proposed: leaving
>> "trunk" for development purpose (like it was before the CI train
>> started) and push the landed commits into other b
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Alberto Mardegan <
alberto.marde...@canonical.com> wrote:
> I think that Alexander summarized it quite well, but to try even a
> shorter version, the only differences from today are:
> 1) At the end of the CI train, when a branch lands into an Ubuntu
> archive, the
On 04/08/2014 07:30 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On this topic, we will scheduled a CI call later this week where the
> next steps from UDS will be one more time revisited and then planned
> out; jfunk will probably send a summary after the call if you can't
> attend. Reason why this didn't happen s
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Alberto Mardegan
wrote:
> Hi all!
> At the USD there was a session about the landing process, and some
> people brought up the point that having the "trunk" branch synchronized
> with the archive was inconvenient for developers:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 15:30 +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> In the last 5 minutes of the session, a solution was proposed: leaving
> "trunk" for development purpose (like it was before the CI train
> started) and push the landed commits into other branches, such as
> "trusty".
And what exactly wo
Hey Renato,
Le 08/04/2014 17:31, Renato Filho a écrit :
Working is several different branches causes a lot of work. During
these last days at some point I had more then 15 branches pending to
merge (due the releasing block).
Are we in releasing block mode? I'm not aware if we do right now.
I'
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:31 -0300, Renato Filho wrote:
> This would cause confusion for the community it they want to
> contribute to the project, since the trunk is not up-to-date they will
> need to find which branch to use to start developing, otherwise they
> will get a lot of conflicts as soon
I agree with Alberto
Working is several different branches causes a lot of work. During
these last days at some point I had more then 15 branches pending to
merge (due the releasing block). It consume a lot of work to keep
these branches working without conflict. And the problems was that
they are
On 04/08/2014 05:15 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Imho that will still get us into a state where trunk has gazillion of
> changes and is not releasable.
"gazillion of changes" -> "not releasable"
is a non sequitur: yes, there might be more changes being planned for
landing at the same time, but
On 8 April 2014 13:30, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> At the USD there was a session about the landing process, and some
> people brought up the point that having the "trunk" branch synchronized
> with the archive was inconvenient for developers:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igj-
15 matches
Mail list logo