cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] git workflow
Date Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:59:52 GMT
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> Comments in-line;
>
> On 31-Jul-2014, at 11:03 pm, Alena Prokharchyk <
> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Done, updated the wiki page with my comments. Copy/pasting here:
> >
> > Open items:
> > 1) Which bugs can be submitted to develop branch directly.
> > Document http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> mentions
> > that the
> > *hotfix branch should be created for the blocker/critical bugs in the
> > current production release. What about bugs happenning in the
> *release(the
> > one that hasn't been released yet)/*develop
> > branches ? Should we fix them directly in those branches, or should we
> > branch out off the *release
> > branch, fix the problem, and merge the fix to *release?
>
> As per nvie;
>
> once cut out release branches should only have bugfixes. So, bugfixes can
> directly land on release branch and then cherry-picked or merge to the
> develop branch.
>
> For bugs on develop branch, the commits can land directly on the develop
> branch or can be worked in a branch checked out from develop and when done
> merged back.
>
> In my opinion, for any case developers should not work on any of the
> branches (master, release, develop) directly but checkout branch and work
> on it and merge back (or cherry-pick or squash merge) to respective branch
> only when their work is complete, with unit tests and validated using unit
> testing and smoke tests (BVT).
>

Work need to be tested, but create one branch for every bug seems over
doing. Branch in Git suppose to use with substantial changes. I don't think
anyone would like the idea to have 2 commits for every bug fixes(one merge
commit and one real fix). And it's not the case in the original model as
well.

Patch can be tested by other ways, e.g. upload patches to test system, or
introduce e.g. gerrit, which can integrated with Jenkins to run test on
specific review commit, without commit it to the repo, which I really like
to recommended to enforce the testing. Simply branching out wouldn't mean
you would test it.

--Sheng


>
> > We should decide:
> > for which bugs the hot fix branch should be cut, and which fixes can go
> > directly to *develop/*release branches. This criteria has to be defined
> in
> > the doc, and be based on the a) bug severity b) number of people who work
> > on the bug - if more than one, then we cut the new branch c)
> > feedback/review is needed for the bug d) anything else?
>
> What you suggest is fine. I think couple of areas which can qualify for
> bugfixes (hotfixes) would be related to security, database changes,
> systemvms, agent, hypervisor, network, storage, anything that could be
> considered a blocker.
>
> I’m not sure but I think adopting nvie could possibly affect our release
> process, I would let PMC and experienced RMs to comment on this issue and
> if they would like any modifications to the release process?
>
> On twitter I asked @nvie if he would have any change in the nvie model, he
> has a short reply:
> https://twitter.com/nvie/status/494870892917563393
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> M. +41 779015219 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
>
>
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> 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.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message