On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 14:07 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > Hi, we have currently a production-stable branch which is private; it > is maintained with CP's and merges during a cycle and discarded every > time we bring db-stable into play.
Private branches make me sad. I will be glad to see them disappear. > We deploy stable rather than production-stable to servers. This would > mean no more CP's - only cowboys and deploys. > We shouldn't need CP's because we have the QA process Maris mailed out > for moving things on stable into production. > > And at that point, if we have a security issue we have to deploy asap; > we'd do the following: > - cowboy it out there [and keep it as a cowboy on future deploys] > - land a regular branch fixing it for good > - remove the cowboy when the regular branch has been incorporated > into the main deployed codebase. > > This would chop 4 hours off the time that things take to deploy, > remove one buildbot queue and generally make the whole code->live > story a bit simpler, at the cost of making the security-fix story more > complex. Personally, I think that that is a net win. It's not just security fixes that need this sort of treatment. See, for example, jtv's recent emergency Codehosting fix: it needed to skip ahead of un-QA'd revisions. Cowboying may be appropriate here too. I don't really know. William.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
