cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <>
Subject Re: 4.5 RM
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:06:17 GMT

On Aug 19, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:

> Hi Sebastien,
> On 19-Aug-2014, at 10:17 pm, Sebastien Goasguen <> wrote:
>> The fact that we basically have none, pushes me to argue for a change in git workflow
(see several other threads). because it will be way faster to start "gating" commits using
a new agreed upon workflow (even though it would be a very artificial gate) than waiting for
> I would love to know your experience of using Github pull requests for the ACS doc repos,
and if it will be a good idea to use it for the main repo as well?

Using github pr for the docs repo has been a breeze. Of course it's a totally different "code"
than cloudstack.

The way this work is that people is that people fork on github and submit pr, we turned on
github pr notifications (you have seen some of the emails). We don't merge via github though,
we pull the patch by hand and apply it "git am" then push.

ASF infra reduced the mirroring drastically, so the github mirror is now almost alway in sync
with the main repo.

It has been great, because we used github hooks to publish the docs on RTD. So there is continuous
deployment of the docs.

We could easily use github pr instead of review board (some projects I know have lots of tooling
around RB and hence don't use github pr).

Libcloud (another much smaller project than cloudstack), also accepts pr. It also uses Travis
to run all unitests. All pr are run on Travis which makes it nice to test sanity of the pr.
It has a nice advantage over cloudstack, it's (almost) a rolling release in the sense that
there are very few long term release branches and that most releases are tags on master.

Turning on pr notification for cloudstack is a 2 minute deal…

{off to bed, more tomorrow..)

> I personally think that everyone has used Github and it would take everyone less time
to start using it, it will take us less time to implement for configuring the infra, it has
good integrations with 3rd party solutions such as TravisCI that we may re-use and sometimes
I find it faster than the asf git servers to push/pull.
> But, at times I’ve found the github mirror lagging behind asf repo, so we’ve to be
cautious about this latencies.
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> M. +41 779015219 |
> Blog: | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<>
> CloudStack Consulting<>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England
& Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated
under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated
in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company
registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

View raw message