Based on my experience adding additional branches becomes a nightmare to maintain overtime and we will eventually discover that patches are missing from the different branches (and usually the patches that mater to us :-). The topic of the master being a wild west should be addressed with proper gating jobs and accountability of the community to what they push in.
My 2 cents. Thanks. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:00 AM <guillaume.lamb...@orange.com> wrote: > I agree with most Sam’s comments but I share Thanh’s feeling that having a > separate branch for SR1,SR2,etc is a bad idea > > and that we’d better keep on using tag on the stable/release branch for > that. > > I think a branch called testing/neon would make more sense than several > stable/neon-srX. > > About CI available resources, that’s another topic but a good point. > It would be a pity if we can’t improve the situation because we don’t have > enough HW resources for that. > > Perhaps we need to start to rethink how it is done. I remember some > discussion at the last DDF about that. > > > > BR > > Guillaume > > > > *From:* Thanh Ha [mailto:thanh...@linuxfoundation.org] > *Sent:* jeudi 31 janvier 2019 00:33 > *To:* Sam Hague > *Cc:* LAMBERT Guillaume TGI/OLN; Stephen Kitt; t...@lists.opendaylight.org; > netvirt-...@lists.opendaylight.org; discuss@lists.opendaylight.org > *Subject:* Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Stable branches > etc. > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:17 PM Sam Hague <sha...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:36 PM Thanh Ha <thanh...@linuxfoundation.org> > wrote: > > How is the intermediate branch used in practice though? and what I mean is > does all the patches on this branch then get moved over to the > stable/branch when it is unlocked or does it run in parallel with the > stable/branch? > > Yes, it would be another branch running in parallel just like stable/neon, > maybe a stable-neon/sr1. What could work is those patches that go on the > stable/neon would be immediately cherry-picked to the sr branch to reduce > regressions. But it is up to the project how they cherry-pick patches since > the sr1 branch would not be locked. > > > > Should be clear here than that this proposal goes directly against the > other desire I've heard from the community to have git tags appear on the > branch. By having release specific branches like neon-sr1 that means we > definitely won't be able to have the release tag appear on the neon branch > for example as we will have a further branch split with neon-sr1. > > > > This may not be a big deal since we currently don't have tags on branches > but there's been a few threads discussing how to tweak the workflow to > allow that which this proposal sounds like it will work against the other > desire. > > > > Regards, > > Thanh > > > > What I'm concerned about is that it needs more jobs and becomes yet > another branch we are actively maintaining. Using up more CI resources > which we are actively trying to reduce. > > It could be short-lived, once stable/neon is released it is locked, > stopped jobs and eventually removed and you only have the sr1 branch left. > It is only during this code freeze to release that the stable branch would > last since you have the sr1 branch at the same time which would be the > longer living branch. > > > > Regards, > > Thanh > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:31 AM Sam Hague <sha...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:03 AM <guillaume.lamb...@orange.com> wrote: > > Hi Stephen > > I am sharing your feedback and thinks it would make a lot of sense. > Many linux distros use something similar to deal with staging packages in > their repo, e.g. Fedora with stable/branched/rawhide repos or Debian with > stable/testing/unstable repos. > With only one (master) branch, it is difficult for downstream projects to > deal with both the new features to develop and needed migrations for the > next release at the same time. > An intermediate branch may allow a better synchronization with the > upstream projects as long as ongoing evolution are made available through > nexus. > > This is a good point and was a similar reason for needing a branch. This > has hit us every release where the stable branch is pulled and master goes > forward, but downstreams still want to continue working. They can't since > the stable branch is locked and master becomes the wild west. Some of this > could be alleviated with more reliable planning - getting code in earlier > and tested - but that is hard with limited resources. An intermediate > branch would provide a place to keep working to finish things and make it > into the sr1 and not try to cram something in at the last minute on the > stable branch. > > > Best Regards > Guillaume > > -----Original Message----- > From: tsc-boun...@lists.opendaylight.org [mailto: > tsc-boun...@lists.opendaylight.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Kitt > Sent: mardi 29 janvier 2019 17:25 > To: t...@lists.opendaylight.org; discuss@lists.opendaylight.org > Cc: netvirt-...@lists.opendaylight.org > Subject: [OpenDaylight TSC] Stable branches etc. > > Hi, > > In last week’s TSC call we had a brief discussion around the use of > branches. One issue that comes up regularly is what to use the various > branches for, and it occurred to me that we might be missing a branch > (groan). > > When we start the freeze, we cut stable branches, and since we’re trying > to be ever more rigorous, those stable branches are only supposed to > receive fixes for blocking bugs. What master is used for then is up to each > project, but typically it ends up receiving patches for the next release > cycle (Sodium now). What’s missing in this scenario is somewhere to queue > patches for the next service release (Neon SR1), at least until the freeze > is over and we thaw the stable branches. > > Of course each project can set such a branch up manually if they so wish, > but I’m wondering if projects would be interested in this as a general > approach. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > > Stephen > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > TSC mailing list > t...@lists.opendaylight.org > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.opendaylight.org > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > TSC mailing list > t...@lists.opendaylight.org > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.opendaylight.org https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
