cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] git workflow
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:05:26 GMT
Daan,  

+1 for having stable master branch wherein we bring only tested "development" branches into
master.  
-1 against having a shadow branches to stable/master and pushing changes into stable based
on just CI test runs.  I agree it is better than what we have currently.  But does not solve/address
the stability issue completely.

Thanks,
Raja
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 2:46 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Raja,

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Raja Pullela <raja.pullela@citrix.com> wrote:
> If we are using "Development" branch as a shadow branch for "Stable" - is not worth going
that route because the existing automation may not find all the issues.  As a result, "Stable"
is not completely protected from breakage or failure.
>
> "Stable" should have the last stable released code.
> "Development" should be the release in progress and not a shadow branch for "Stable"
> There should be merges from "Stable" to "Development"  if there are 
> any HOTFIX/Maintenance releases that get released from "Stable" before the "Development"/Release
in progress goes out After QA completes testing, "Development" should get into "Stable"
> Following the "development" merge into "Stable", cut a "Release" 
> Branch Any final bug fixes that are absolutely necessary before the 
> Release, will get fixed on the "Release" Branch Release software from 
> the "Release" Branch After Release, "Release" Branch goes into "Stable"
> From then onwards, "Stable" will have the new Release code

I could read your response both as a +1 and as a counter proposal.
What is your point? We do not protect our users against breakage completely now and we will
not in the future. Is your point that we should only change to something if that completely
protects us from all failure?

> A similar approach was discussed in the wikis/blogs shared by Rajani and Sheng.
Yes, and...

can we,
> work on a 'development' branch.
> merge on a nightly basis to a stable branch given the status of 'development' is 'passing'
> branch release branches as 'x.y' from 'stable'
> merge them back to 'stable' when stable and tag them as 'x.y.z'.
> branch from 'x.y.z' when support branches need to be made as 'x.y' 
> again do not merge those back in principle but keep those around for 
> users to play with and because 'stable' and 'develop' continue 
> </proposal>


--
Daan
Mime
View raw message