Hi, The dumpling branch now contains the commits that were in the dumpling-backports branch, they have been merged.
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/77dfbbaccfb5074899d02314a26cb9ac46a69106 is the head of the dumpling branch I'm refering to. Cheers On 10/02/2015 20:11, Yuri Weinstein wrote: > Great! > > As soon as it's merged I will schedule suite to run as listed somewhere below > ... > > dumpling with higher priority and then giant. > > Thx > YuriW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Loic Dachary" <[email protected]> > To: "Sage Weil" <[email protected]>, "Gregory Farnum" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Yuri Weinstein" <[email protected]>, "Ceph Development" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:06:43 AM > Subject: Re: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE > > Hi, > > That's too much information for me to digest quickly. Instead of stalling I > will go ahead and merge the dumpling pull requests into the dumpling branch > so that Yuri can proceed. And I'll take time to revise my understanding of > the backport workflow with your input. > > Cheers > > On 10/02/2015 19:37, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Yeah, it seems to me like the same general process we use for 'next' and >> 'master' would work here: >> >> - prepare a batch of backports, say dumpling-rgw-next >> - run it through the rgw suite >> - if that is okay, merge to dumpling >> - run regular tests on dumpling (all suites) >> >> so that dumpling acts as in integration branch the same way the others do. >> This is reasonably lightweight on process and means that our periodic >> scheduled runs are doing double duty for the integration testing and >> catching long-tail bugs. >> >> After talking through the last release vs 'next' branch race with Alfredo >> I think (?) we've established that it is a non-issue. If a release build >> races with a branch update it shows up as a merge commit in the history >> (just like a regular 'git pull'). >> >> Unless we're specifically concerned about things landing in dumpling (or >> whatever) just prior to a release? >> >> sage >> > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
