7. aug. 2014 00:28 skrev "Alena Prokharchyk" <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> følgende: > > > > On 8/6/14, 3:18 PM, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >[top posting, apologies in advance] > > > >I am on vacation, so I will go straight to it :) > > > >This all discussion is not about gitflow specifically, it is about > >modifying our git workflow and our commit practices to something more > >standard that can: > > > >- ultimately help improve quality (in itself it won't but it can help lay > >a foundation) > >- provide a stable master (it keeps breaking, it has regressions, it > >moves really fast etc..) > >- help cut releases > > > >Any committer has write privileges and can do whatever it wants to the > >repos, so we need to get a nice big consensus on what problems we are > >trying to solve, and how best to get there. So let's not make this a > >debate of yeah or neah gitflow. > > > >A better CI is coming but it's not yet there and we have no ETA. Even > >with a CI infra in place, we will need commit discipline to improve > >quality (covertity, unitests, simulator tests). Changing our git commit > >practices has no cost (just emails and self discipline), so can we agree > >to do that first ? > > > >Here are couple high level things that I have in mind ( and I confess I > >have not read the entire threads on this yet and ti ma conflict with > >gitflow). > > > >-Master: what goes in master is only something that has been put into a > >release (aside from the maintenance releases fixes maybe...). Master is > >the base for any release branch (until we get to 4.5, master will still > >see some high churn to stabilize it, after 4.5 release branch is cut we > >should enter into a stable master mode). > > > Sebastian, we can’t adopt this particular high level thing - when master > reflects the latest stable release with the tags for all previous releases > - because support maintenance releases for multiple CS versions in > parallel. And while master’s latest version is 4.4, 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 can be > released. And there is no way to merge them back to master w/o breaking > the branch history. >
Gitflow supports this, see one of my other responses for how, but only new major versions (ie 4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.6.0 etc.) goes to master. Support (maintenance if you prefer) releases live their life in their own branches. > The model when master reflects the latest released branch, can be used for > the systems with rolling upgrades only, no maintenance releases for > previous versions of the software. > > To get more details, please read the latest email exchange (today’s) on > git workflow between me/Rohit and Dave Nalley. > > > > > > >-Release: from the time a release branch is cut, features are only merged > >by RM. hot fixes are only merged by RM. the RM is responsible for the > >entire release process. Since he defines the scope and is the primary > >person responsible to check BVT for the release branch he should be able > >to release on-time. Major release gets merged back into master. > > > >-Devs: folks working on features and fixes are responsible to merge into > >the develop branch and call the RM for a merge into a release branch > >(this may vary with gitflow, where release branch is cut from develop) > > > >Once we have CI, it should run on every branch. > > > >-sebastien > > > > > >On Aug 6, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > ><alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > >> Edison, thank you for raising the concern about the BVT/CI. Somebody > >> mentioned earlier that we should separate git workflow implementation > >>from > >> the CI effort, but I do think we have to do in in conjunction. Otherwise > >> what is the point in introducing staging/develop branch? If there is no > >> daily automation run verifying all the code merged from hotFixes/feature > >> branches (and possibly reverting wrong checkins), we can as well merge > >>the > >> code directly to master. > >> > >> -Alena. > >> > >> On 8/6/14, 2:30 PM, "Edison Su" <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com] > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:59 PM > >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] git workflow > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8/6/14, 12:52 PM, "Erik Weber" <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < > >>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Agree with you, Rohit. The changes to the git model we use, are > >>>>>> needed indeed. But we should address only the problems that CS > >>>>>>faces, > >>>>>> and the main problem - quality control. The proposal should be > >>>>>> limited just to the changes that are really needed for the CS, and > >>>>>> that will work with the current CS model (minor maintenance > >>>>>>releases > >>>>>> support is a part of it) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Theoretically you don't really have to change anything other than > >>>>> merging instead of cherry picking. > >>>>> That is the main issue from a release perspective. > >>>>> > >>>>> But I still think there are good reasons to do so; > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) using a well known way of handling code/releases instantly tells > >>>>>new > >>>>> contributors / committers how we work. add to the fact that there > >>>>> exists tools to help doing this correctly is a bonus. > >>>>> 2) having a known stable (atleast in theory) release as master is > >>>>>good > >>>>> practice. although not many users will be running from git, i still > >>>>> consider it to be good practice. > >>>>> 3) there is a huge belief in this thread/discussion that as long as > >>>>> something passes CI / BVT it is considered stable. The fact is that > >>>>>it > >>>>> is not. Take the recent 4.4 release as a good example, where a new > >>>>> install was not working at all at the point of release. Now, this is > >>>>> more a CI / test coverage issue than git workflow issue, but i find > >>>>>it > >>>>> weird to use as an argument for not improving the workflow. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Erik > >>>> > >>>> I¹m not arguing against keeping master release stable; I advocate for > >>>> it. > >>> > >>> +1, we need to take action to make sure master is stable. Frankly > >>> speaking, > >>> I don't want to fix the regression on the master, I assume nobody want > >>>to > >>> do that. > >>> Here is the list of regression issues(not introduced by myself) I fixed > >>> on master after 4.4: > >>> > >>> CLOUDSTACK-7123 > >>> CLOUDSTACK-7110 > >>> CLOUDSTACK-7166 > >>> CLOUDSTACK-7164 > >>> Most of this issues will be caught even by a simulator BVT. I want to > >>> make it clear, that, > >>> If we don't take action to reduce/eliminate the regression as much as > >>> possible in the future, I will not fix any of this regression issues. > >>> I remember there is discussion about setting up a staging branch, run > >>>BVT > >>> against it for each commit, what's the conclusion if any? Why so > >>> difficult to make it happen? Is there anything I can help to make it > >>> happen? > >>> > >>>> But we can¹t adopt git workflow way of keeping master branch to be a > >>>> reflection of the latest release branch. It will not work with our way > >>>> of > >>>> handling maintenance releases for multiple versions of CS - see > >>>>another > >>>> thread. > >>> > >>> > >>> +1, I'll -1 on any of proposal, if it doesn't solve problem most of us > >>> are concerning about. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Instead, master branch should reflect the latest code that passed the > >>>> CI test > >>>> (the code merged from *develop after CI passes). The release branches > >>>> should be cut from stable master branch - it will ensure that we won¹t > >>>> face > >>>> last minute blockers as for 4.4, because master IS a stable branch. > >>>> And yes, we should do merges instead of cherry picking. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > > >
