Hi Lucian, Are you referring to the forward merging? That has been scripted: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/tools/git/git-fwd-merge
There may be conflicts at some point, but that also happens with cherry-picking. If you mean something else I probably missed your point, sorry. Regards, Remi On 12/01/16 17:17, "Nux!" <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: >Guys, I am not a coder to appreciate how sustainable this would be. > >Who around here with actual java skills thinks this is achievable in a >reasonable way? Cause if it's not we're just wasting time. > >Lucian > >-- >Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >Nux! >www.nux.ro > >----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Remi Bergsma" <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 January, 2016 15:36:52 >> Subject: Re: LTS release or not > >> Hi, >> >> The method Daan describes can be done from 4.6 and on. It’s about merging a >> PR >> with a fix, and forward merging it. Not about actually releasing immediately. >> >> If the bug has always been there, one would merge to 4.6, merge forward to >> newer >> releases (and finally master) and then back port (aka cherry-pick) to 4.5. >> >> Regards, >> Remi >> >> >> >> On 12/01/16 15:55, "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: >> >>>Depending on how far back the problem originated, this may not be >>>practical. >>>The code might have been massaged many times or code may have been >>>written that depends on the buggy behaviour. >>> >>>If the bug "was always there" but no one had figured out the exploit, it >>>might not be possible to identify any particular commit at all. >>> >>>Would your solution trigger a whole bunch of new releases - 4.4.x, >>>4.5.y, 4.6.z, 4.7.1, etc. or would the fix just be applied to the branch >>>and noted while we wait for enough to accumulate to trigger a new >>>release? Who would want to work on 4.4.x release? >>> >>>The amount of testing required to support all that backporting would >>>certainly deter people from fixing old bugs! >>> >>>No code is bug free so I am not sure how bad it is to say that a bug >>>will only be fixed in the LTS and current release. >>> >>>System administrators can then decide if the bug is worth an update to >>>the fixed version or should be fixed on the release that they currently >>>run, causing a local fork that they will deal with during their next >>>upgrade cycle. >>> >>> >>>Ron >>> >>> >>>On 12/01/2016 2:18 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: >>>> ok, one last €0,01: any bug should be fixed not on the branch but on the >>>> commit it was introduced in and thenn be merged forward. It can then be >>>> merged into any branch that contains the offending commit and there is no >>>> longer any difference between LTS or anything else. Am I speaking >>>> Kardeshian? I am really surprised no one in this list sees source code and >>>> release management this way. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Ron Wheeler >>>> <rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> There may have to be some rules about patches such as >>>>> "You may not apply any bug fix to a minor release that will break the >>>>> upgrade path." >>>>> So 4.6.0, 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 can all be upgraded to 4.7.0 or the latest 4.7.x >>>>> If a user absolutely needs a fix that breaks this, then it is their >>>>> problem to upgrade to 4.7.x rather than building a long-term problem into >>>>> a >>>>> stable branch. >>>>> At some point no one will be happy with the latest 4.6.x and everyone will >>>>> upgraded. >>>>> >>>>> Any user that applies the offending patch to 4.6.2 should know that they >>>>> have created their own misery and will have to work out the upgrade at >>>>> some >>>>> point or continue their private fork forever. >>>>> >>>>> There is nothing wrong to saying that "Bug xx is only fixed in version >>>>> 4.8.0 and later". >>>>> Even if version 4.6.5 came out a month after 4.8.0, bug xx is not fixed. >>>>> No piece of software is bug-free so we are really discussing what happens >>>>> once a bug is found and a fix is available. >>>>> 4.6.5 will run exactly like it did before the bug was found. >>>>> >>>>> Bugs that will cause update issues will trigger a new major release. >>>>> If the current supported releases are 4.6.2 and 4.7.1 then the bug will >>>>> cause a 4.8.0 to come into existence with an upgrade path that goes from >>>>> 4.6.2 to 4.7.0 (or 4.7.1 which should be the identical upgrade) to 4.8.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My 2 cents! >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/01/2016 10:23 AM, Rene Moser wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Remi >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/11/2016 04:16 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maintaining LTS is harder than it seems. For example with upgrading. You >>>>>>> can only upgrade to versions that are released _after_ the specific LTS >>>>>>> version. This due to the way upgrades work. If you release 4.7.7 when >>>>>>> we’re >>>>>>> on say 4.10, you cannot upgrade to 4.8 or 4.9. The same for 4.5: 4.5.4 >>>>>>> cannot upgrade to any 4.6, 4.7 or 4.8 because it simply didn’t exist >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> these versions were released. (4.5.3 has been accounted for so that does >>>>>>> work this time). If you want to keep doing 4.5 releases 18 months from >>>>>>> now, >>>>>>> that’s going to be a real issue. Users probably won’t understand and >>>>>>> expect >>>>>>> it to work. And yes, we will change the upgrading procedures but it’s >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Out of curiosity. I thought about patch relases like this scheme 4.5.2.x >>>>>> for LTS. This would work right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> René >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ron Wheeler >>>>> President >>>>> Artifact Software Inc >>>>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler >>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Ron Wheeler >>>President >>>Artifact Software Inc >>>email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>>skype: ronaldmwheeler >>>phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
