On 08/28/2015 12:16 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:
Hi Abhishek,
We've just had an example of a backport merged into hammer although it did not
follow the procedure : https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5691
It's a key aspect of backports : we're bound to follow procedure, but
developers are allowed to bypass it entirely. It may seem like something
leading to chaos and frustration but it turns out to be exactly the opposite.
In a nutshell, it would be constant source of frustration for developers to
learn and obey the rules documented at
http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO because it would not
benefit them significantly. It would also be a problem for us, backporters,
because developers would not be as interested in backporting and our workload
would significantly increase.
When a developer prepares a backport on his / her own, we update the pull
request and the issues to obey the procedure so the (s)he does not have to.
Sure, it's a little tedious but it's a small price to pay for the benefit of
having a backport being dealt with. That's what I did for
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5691 : updaging the corresponding issues,
adding cross references to the pull request.
Samuel Just felt confident enough about the backport that it did not need a
rados run to verify it does the right thing. Since it's ultimately Sam's
responsibility, that's also ok. The only thing we need to keep in mind when
analyzing the next rados run is that this backport did not pass yet. We don't
have a way to mark commits that bypassed tests just yet, if you have ideas let
us know :-)
That was me merging it based on my local testing. I'll keep an eye out
for any fallout in the hammer runs.
Thanks for keeping everything updated Loic!
Josh
--
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
