cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:22:29 GMT
Hi,

> On 23-Oct-2014, at 11:47 am, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
wrote:
>
> [Animesh] Sebastian you have brought up a  good point dependency on QA team from Citrix
is an issue for the project. This was raised in the past as well and Alex's proposal [1] few
months back using CI was in my opinion is the optimal solution. Why? Because CloudStack is
a huge project and one single person cannot have the full knowledge to safely review all the
code and certainly cannot scale, which CI and automation can address
>
> Keeping master stable is something no one would argue against and my point would match
the original proposal from Alex. May be we can  have a staging branch for master and then
merging the commit only after they have passed CI into master. The proposal got derailed and
delayed because as called out at that time community does not want to work with a process
that has a dependency on infrastructure that is not controlled by community. David and I are
working to get the hardware from Citrix into ACS infra.

Agree. Animesh has good point to share here.

> The approach for fixing issues in release branch first and master later is not practical
as we may miss out commits not made into master and future release regressing without the
fixes.

By the same logic, if we fix by default on master only, the release branch may miss out commits.

At any given time, the release branch is hopefully more stable than master (since it’s getting
bugfixes/hardening as Animesh shared). So, by merging release branch on master we get all
those hardened changes back to master. If we fix things on release branch and keep merging
the release branch on master, we fix the issue both on release branch and master branch.

The only issue I see is code divergence between release branch and master branch as time passes.

> Also as the release goes into hardening cycle there will be a number of fixes which will
not be allowed in release branch but need to be fixes for future, they should all go in master.
Master is the catch all default branch and in my opinion should get fixes first.

Agree, any fix that should not be done on release branch should go in to master.

Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +91 88 262 30892 | 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
View raw message