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:[email protected]] Sent: jeudi 31 janvier 2019 00:33 To: Sam Hague Cc: LAMBERT Guillaume TGI/OLN; Stephen Kitt; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Stable branches etc. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:17 PM Sam Hague <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:36 PM Thanh Ha <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:03 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Stephen Kitt Sent: mardi 29 janvier 2019 17:25 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
