incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mohammad Nour El-Din <nour.moham...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] where to begin the process for Apache CloudStack 4.0.0
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 18:53:52 GMT
Hi

  I agree that branching from a branch is not the way to go. But at the
same time I agree with David that we need to follow the rule:

- Release soon and release regularly

also I agree with David that next release must focus more on cleaning the
code or at least starting to clean the code

The bottom line is:

1- The community is very big and healthy so I am not worried about getting
new blood into the project
2- That leaves one thing left, that is complying the code to ASF rules and
getting releases out

That would fasten our graduation from the incubator

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:35 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com>
> wrote:
> > On 05/31/2012 12:35 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote:
> >>
> >> The master branch hasn't diverged much from the 3.0.x branch at this
> >> point.  I can't name any divergence off the top of my head.  I would
> expect
> >> 3.0.x to be more stable, but if there is another reason to go forth with
> >> master then I wouldn't stop that for stability reasons.
> >>
> >>> New features going to master for 4.1.x  (though our focus should really
> >>> be on
> >>> getting an ASF-acceptable release out) Rename the 3.0.x branch to 4.0.x
> >>> to
> >>> reflect reality.
> >>
> >>
> >> Renaming the branch will create confusion.  The previous 3.0.x releases
> >> have already been done off of it so all the committers (and anyone else
> that
> >> has been looking at the code) are expecting this to be the 3.0.x release
> >> set.  We could plausibly cut a 4.0.0 and future 4.0.x releases off the
> 3.0.x
> >> branch.  That is a little odd but (IMO) less confusing than renaming the
> >> branch out from under people.
> >>
> >> We could also take a 4.0.x branch off 3.0.x or master.   That leaves
> open
> >> the option of a later 3.0.x release on the 3.0.x branch.  That seems the
> >> cleanest approach to me, but it would add some additional branch
> management
> >> overhead if fixes are needed in both 3.0.x and 4.0.x.
> >>
> >> I might have a slight preference to branching 4.0.x off master.  Then we
> >> would establish a pattern that major releases get branched from master,
> as
> >> was done for 3.0.0 and 4.0.0.   This would extend naturally into 5.0.0,
> etc.
> >>  and is easy to explain to new committers.
> >
> >
> > I fully agree with Kevin. Branching 4.0.x off 3.0.x instead of master is
> > confusing. We should always branch major release branches off master.
> This
> > does not mean we have to branch 4.0.x of HEAD in master, we can choose an
> > earlier commit in master if there is concern that HEAD has some
> > instabilities.
> >
> > My $0.02
> > Robert
>
> OK - I can see the logic in that. Soooo - do we need the 3.0.x branch
> around anymore? Or perhaps better put - do we intend to use it - even
> if we don't purge it? A couple of follow on questions - when should we
> branch master to build 4.0.x?
>
> --David
>



-- 
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein

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