cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:27:47 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:22 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
> commit
> 
> 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.
> 
[Animesh] Yes that is correct and that's why we had the forward branches in 4.2 and 4.3 so
that commits go into  forward branches (really staging) an master and it was a simple merge
of forward back to release branch. The other approach of merging release branch into master
work as well but in my opinion keeping master as the default branch (with protection of course
) is simpler to understand and created less confusion

> > 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