incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Schweikert <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] where to begin the process for Apache CloudStack 4.0.0
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:37:29 GMT
On 05/31/2012 01:35 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Robert Schweikert<>  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?

Well, that's kind off a Citrix question. Is Citrix interested in having 
a public branch to work in? From a community perspective it woudl appear 
that only the master branch is of interest plus any feature branches 
that are public.

> A couple of follow on questions - when should we
> branch master to build 4.0.x?

I am generally in favor of a "branch as late as possible" model to avoid 
duplicate work (2 commits). However there are also good reasons to 
"branch early" as this model tends to have less impact on new feature 
development. For the first go around, intended mostly for "clean up 
tasks" the branch timing is probably less important.


Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead

View raw message