On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Loic Dachary <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/02/2015 18:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote:> >> On 10/02/2015 18:19, Yuri Weinstein wrote:> >>> Loic, >>> >>> The only difference between options if we run suits on merged dumpling vs >>> dumpling-backports first - is time. >>> We will have to run suites on the final branch after the merge anyway. >> >> Could you explain why ? After merging dumpling and dumpling-backports will >> be exactly the same. >> >> Loic - I feel that finial QE validation should be done on the code that gets >> actually released to customers, e.g. dumpling branch after the merge. I do >> see your point about branches being identical and ready to change my mind if >> you insist. Does my reasoning make sense? Please advice, how we should >> proceed. > > The dumpling-backports branch currently is at > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410 > > after a successful test run from QE and a merge into dumpling, the dumpling > branch will be at > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410 > > as well. In other words they are identical and there is no point in running a > test again. The only reason why they could be different is if a commit is > inadvertently added to the dumpling branch while testing happens on the > dumpling-backport branc. In this case the presence of this new commit would > be reason enough to run another round of test indeed. So the process could be: > > If tests are ok and merge can fast forward, then release. > If tests are ok and merge cannot fast forward, send back to loic because a > commit was added by accident and needs to be approved by the leads. > > If testing happens on the dumpling branch, adding a commit to the dumpling > branch would have side effects that could taint the results of the tests or, > even worse, go unnoticed. There is zero chance that someone adds a commit to > the dumpling-backports branch and that gives us something stable. On the > contrary, the odds that someone adds a commit to the dumpling branch are > high, specially if the tests take a few weeks to complete. > > As Greg mentioned, merging in dumpling does not matter much for this round > because it is what has been done in the past. And to be honest, I would not > mind if an additional commit taints the process by accident. However, unless > there is a reason not to, it would be good to establish a process that is > solid if we can. > > I've witnessed Alfredo's pain on each release and an additional benefit of > having a dumpling-backports branch that nobody tampers with just occured to > me. When and if QE finds that dumpling-backports is fit for release, instead > of merging it into dumpling it could be handed over to Alfredo for release. > And he would be able to proceed knowing it is stable and won't be moving > forward. Once the release is done and the tag set to the proper commit, the > dumpling branch can be reset to dumpling-backports. If commits were added > during the process, their authors could be notified that they were discarded > and need to be merge again. That would not work for the master branch but it > would definitely be possible for the stable branches because such "out of > process" commits are rarely added. > > I've not thought this through, but the more I think about it the more I like > the idea of using dumpling-backports as a staging area until the release is > final.
What's the purpose of even having a dumpling branch at that point? We're not using it for anything under your model. Now, as it happens there are some reasons to maintain a dumpling branch that isn't part of backports. We've been doing a lot of work lately to make the nightlies behave well under RHEL and in various other environments, which sometimes involve changing the tests themselves. That can mean updating the ceph.git/qa/workunits in our LTS branches, which I've done a few times over the last couple of months. Since they're used for testing they aren't suitable for going through a backports workflow, we just want them to get into the nightlies as fast as possible. Tossing out any such work every time a point release appears would be irritating, to say the least. (We could also pull the workunits out of ceph.git, but that's a different discussion.) -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
