cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nux! <...@li.nux.ro>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:46:52 GMT
+1 LTS, but FWIW I also think Daan has a point here and it should be taken into consideration.

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 January, 2016 07:45:57
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> In terms of the merge strategy, nothing about the current process would
>> change. Defects would be fixed on the branch where they occurred and then
>> forward ported to master. For each maintained LTS branch less than 14
>> months old, only blocker and critical defects that fall within the LTS’
>> branch scope would be pulled back from master. Therefore, the number of
>> defects backported should be relatively small. Any defects found and fixed
>> in an LTS branch would be forward ported to master. I will clarify the
>> proposal to establish this merge pattern to ensure that LTS does not
>> violate or impede the flow of defect fixes on master and maintained monthly
>> releases.
>>
> 
> ​John, Any backporting should be avoided. Any fix review should include the
> contemplation of the question, 'Is this on the right branch?'. That is my
> point. I am not against LTS. I want fixes to be traceable by their commit
> id over all branches. Backporting is killing in that respect.​
> 
> ​I am not the release manager so rest assured I will not ​make an issue of
> this any more. I won't hold my peace either, though.
> 
> 
> --
> Daan

Mime
View raw message