cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management
Date Wed, 06 May 2015 14:00:33 GMT
Fcourse

On Wed, 6 May 2015 15:02 Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you sync with Rohit, who is merging the noawsapi stuff as well..
>
> > On May 6, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I can have a look at the merge of 4.5.1 and am willing to be one of the
> > RMs, not to be the RM!
> >
> > Op wo 6 mei 2015 om 09:47 schreef sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> So no -1 on this.
> >>
> >> Do we have volunteers to RM 4.6 on the master branch ?
> >>
> >> I propose to set a date asap, tag master and tell everyone that starting
> >> from that tag all commits to master except from RM will be reverted.
> >>
> >> will need to make sure that all of 4.5.1 is in master
> >>
> >> -sebastien
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 1, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let's not do more quality improvement proces but just improve quality.
> If
> >>> anybody want to add to the pages on the wiki, you're welkom but nobody
> >> did
> >>> for long time. +1 for the present state of Sebastien's views on things.
> >> We
> >>> can refine at any time.
> >>>
> >>> Op vr 1 mei 2015 om 09:55 schreef sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 1, 2015, at 12:52 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion891@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my mind it was kind of making more sense to start by keeping
4.6
> >> into
> >>>> a
> >>>>> separate branch, enforce pull-requests and deploy the CI. smaller
> step
> >>>> but
> >>>>> faster result, and from there, once we get stable with the CI
> >>>>
> >>>> I hear you.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we have waited for way too long for better CI. I see great efforts
> >> in
> >>>> that direction.
> >>>> But I personally do not want to wait any longer to make a move.
> >>>>
> >>>> We do open source, we should have fun, take risks, move fast, fail
> fast,
> >>>> recover etc….
> >>>>
> >>>> so let's JFDI
> >>>>
> >>>>> and git flow;
> >>>>> move into master, do fastest releases cycle. If we consider we can
do
> >> all
> >>>>> that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you
> >>>> say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6
> >>>> release ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If
> we
> >>>> can improve a bit on the QA then we win.
> >>>> Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I can help
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We can do this proposal on email..and once we have consensus write it
> up
> >>>> for archive in the wiki.
> >>>> If we move to the wiki now, this effort is going to die.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Seb: doesn't the vote would confirm the consensus?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> if we have consensus no need for vote.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Raja:  do we have any documentation somewhere on how to use,
> contribute
> >>>> to
> >>>>> the smoke test? that could be our start for the CI tests?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <
> runseb@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After reviewing the history as mentioned by Daan, unless
we propose
> >>>>>>> and vote on a newer workflow model I think the best we can
do is to
> >>>>>>> simply be more strict about commits to master. They all
need to be
> >>>>>>> merges that have been tested against master before merge.
This will
> >> in
> >>>>>>> theory make master more stable, but doesn't really change
the
> >> workflow
> >>>>>>> we've already agreed upon and have been working under (although
> >>>>>>> bugfixes sometimes were not coming in from branches, and
> >> cherry-picked
> >>>>>>> bugfixes from branches will need to go into a branch first,
tested
> >>>>>>> against master, and merged to master). We can essentially
set a
> date
> >>>>>>> and do that any time, with some advance notice that direct
commits
> >>>>>>> will be reverted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes +1.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Set a date
> >>>>>> -Tag master for reference
> >>>>>> -Find a volunteer or two to RM master
> >>>>>> -automatic revert on master if not from RM
> >>>>>> -all commits to master come from PR, need clear review and green
> tests
> >>>>>> -harden master (basic QA process), release 4.6 as a tag on master
> >>>>>> -all features and fixes need to be made on branches or forks
and
> onus
> >> is
> >>>>>> on devs to rebase to master
> >>>>>> -brings everyone onto 4.6 (make sure we have upgrade paths from
4.3,
> >>>> 4.4,
> >>>>>> etc)
> >>>>>> -from there forward only maintain a linear release through master
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Feel free to add, tweak
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> PS: No need to vote if we have consensus. Taking a clue from
ASF
> >>>> members,
> >>>>>> votes should be avoided at all cost, they mean that we do not
have
> >> clear
> >>>>>> consensus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <
> >> runseb@gmail.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Have they diverged that much? Due to cherry-picking,
I guess.
> >>>>>>>>> Otherwise you should be able to do it cleanly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There's a good opportunity to do this next release.
Instead of
> >>>>>>>>> creating a release branch, we freeze master and
start creating
> dev
> >>>>>>>>> branches.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This just amounts to treating master now like a release
branch.
> >>>> Getting
> >>>>>> back to PL suggestion, that means
> >>>>>>>> that any commit to master would be through a PR or MERGE
request
> on
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> ML. Anything else will be reverted by the RM.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Marcus, do you feel like writing down a little process
for this
> and
> >>>>>> some dates that we can target.
> >>>>>>>> It would be nice to do this for 4.6.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Daan Hoogland
<
> >>>>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> We heavily invested in code now on master. Not
looking forward
> to
> >>>>>>>>>> backporting that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mobile dev with bilingual spelling checker used
(read at your
> own
> >>>>>> risk)
> >>>>>>>>>> Op 17 apr. 2015 21:02 schreef "Marcus" <shadowsor@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, would we just swap the last release
branch with master?
> >>>> Master
> >>>>>>>>>>> is the dev branch, and the last release
is really what we have
> >> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>> stable branch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Daan Hoogland
<
> >>>>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Sebastien
Goasguen <
> >>>>>> runseb@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:49 AM,
Pierre-Luc Dion <
> >>>> pdion@cloudops.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today during the CloudStackdays
 we did a round table about
> >>>>>> Release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> management targeting the next
4.6 releases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick bullet point discussions:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas to change release planning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Plugin contribution is complicated
because often  a new
> >> plugin
> >>>>>>>>>>> involve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change on the core:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ex: storage plugin involve
changes on Hypervisor code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - There is an idea of going
on a 2 weeks release model which
> >>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce issue the database
schema.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Database schema version should
be different then the
> >>>> application
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - There is a will to enforce
git workflow in 4.6  and
> trigger
> >>>>>>>>>>> simulator
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> job on  PullRequest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Some people (I'm part of them)
are concerned on our
> current
> >>>> way
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting and back porting
fixes to multiple release
> (4.3.x,
> >>>>>> 4.4.x,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.5.x). But the current level
of confidence against latest
> >>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>> is low,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that need to be improved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the main messages is that
w'd like to improve the
> release
> >>>>>>>>>>> velocity, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release branch stability.  so
we would like to propose few
> >>>> change
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way we would add code to the
4.6 branch as follow:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All new contribution to 4.6
would be thru Pull Request or
> >>>> merge
> >>>>>>>>>>> request,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would trigger a simulator
job, ideally only if that
> pass
> >>>>>> the PR
> >>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be accepted and automatically
merged.  At this time, I think
> >> we
> >>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have everything in place to
do that. At a first step we
> would
> >>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator+marvin jobs then improve
tests coverage from
> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We do need to realize what this
means and be all fine with
> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that if someone who is
not RM directly commits to
> the
> >>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>> branch, the commit will be reverted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And that from the beginning of the
branching…
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree and we can even go as far as
reverting fixes that are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cherry-picked in favour of merged forward.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, I think this would be a good
step but I don’t think it
> >> goes
> >>>>>> far
> >>>>>>>>>>> enough.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed here as well but let's take the
step while discussing
> >>>> further
> >>>>>>>>>>>> steps and not implement to much process
as well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This still uses a paradigm where
a release is made from a
> >> release
> >>>>>>>>>>> branch that was started from an unstable
development branch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence you still need *extensive*
QA.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem here is that there is no
stable point to fork from
> >> at
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> moment. We will get there and we shouldn't
stop taking steps
> in
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> direction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we truly want to release faster,
we need to release from
> the
> >>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>> QA’d branch time after time….a release
needs to be based on a
> >>>>>> previous
> >>>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, we need a rolling release
cycle. That will have
> the
> >>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>>>>> benefit to not leave releases behind and
have to focus on
> >>>>>> backporting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please comments :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Daan
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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