On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/09/2018 01:24 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:25 AM Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Maintainers, > > > > The following thread talks about a merge during a merge lockdown, > with > > differing view points (this mail is not to discuss the view points). > > > > The root of the problem is that we leave the current process to good > > faith. If we have a simple rule that we will not merge anything > during a > > lock down period, this confusion and any future repetitions of the > same > > would not occur. > > > > I propose that we follow the simpler rule, and would like to hear > > thoughts around this. > > > > This also means that in the future, we may not need to remove commit > > access for other maintainers, as we do *not* follow a good faith > policy, > > and instead depend on being able to revert and announce on the > threads > > why we do so. > > > > > > I think it is a good opportunity to establish guidelines and process so > > that we don't end up in this state in future where one needs to lock > > down the branch to make it stable. From that p.o.v. discussion on this > > thread about establishing a process for lock down probably doesn't add > > much value. My personal opinion for this instance at least is that it is > > good that it was locked down. I tend to forget things and not having the > > access to commit helped follow the process automatically :-). > > The intention is that master and release branches are always maintained > in good working order. This involves, tests and related checks passing > *always*. > > When this situation is breached, correcting it immediately is better > than letting it build up, as that would entail longer times and more > people to fix things up. > > In an ideal world, if nightly runs fail, the next thing done would be to > examine patches that were added between the 2 runs, and see if they are > the cause for failure, and back them out. > > Hence calling to backout patches is something that would happen more > regularly in the future if things are breaking. > I'm with you till here. > > Lock down may happen if 2 consecutive nightly builds fail, so as to > rectify the situation ASAP, and then move onto other work. > > In short, what I wanted to say is that preventing lock downs in the > future, is not a state we aspire for. What are the problems you foresee in aspiring for preventing lock downs for everyone? > Lock downs may/will happen, it is > done to get the branches stable quicker, than spend long times trying to > find what caused the instability in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > Please note, if there are extraneous situations (say reported > security > > vulnerabilities that need fixes ASAP) we may need to loosen up the > > stringency, as that would take precedence over the lock down. These > > exceptions though, can be called out and hence treated as such. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > This is again my personal opinion. We don't need to merge patches in any > > branch unless we need to make an immediate release with that patch. For > > example if there is a security issue reported we *must* make a release > > with the fix immediately so it makes sense to merge it and do the > release. > > Agree, keeps the rule simple during lock down and not open to > interpretations. > > > > > > > > > Shyam > > > > PS: Added Yaniv to the CC as he reported the deviance > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health > > report > > (Week of 30th July) > > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:22:09 +0300 > > From: Yaniv Kaul <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > To: Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > CC: GlusterFS Maintainers <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Gluster Devel > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > > Nigel Babu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:46 PM Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > On 08/07/2018 02:58 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > > > The intention is to stabilize master and not add more > patches > > that my > > > destabilize it. > > > > > > > > > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/20603/ has been merged. > > > As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with stabilization > and > > should > > > be reverted. > > > > Posted this on the gerrit review as well: > > > > <snip> > > 4.1 does not have nightly tests, those run on master only. > > > > > > That should change of course. We cannot strive for stability > otherwise, > > AFAIK. > > > > > > Stability of master does not (will not), in the near term > guarantee > > stability of release branches, unless patches that impact code > > already > > on release branches, get fixes on master and are back ported. > > > > Release branches get fixes back ported (as is normal), this fix > > and its > > merge should not impact current master stability in any way, and > > neither > > stability of 4.1 branch. > > </snip> > > > > The current hold is on master, not on release branches. I agree > that > > merging further code changes on release branches (for example > > geo-rep > > issues that are backported (see [1]), as there are tests that > fail > > regularly on master), may further destabilize the release > > branch. This > > patch is not one of those. > > > > > > Two issues I have with the merge: > > 1. It just makes comparing master branch to release branch harder. > For > > example, to understand if there's a test that fails on master but > > succeeds on release branch, or vice versa. > > 2. It means we are not focused on stabilizing master branch. > > Y. > > > > > > Merging patches on release branches are allowed by release > > owners only, > > and usual practice is keeping the backlog low (merging weekly) > > in these > > cases as per the dashboard [1]. > > > > Allowing for the above 2 reasons this patch was found, > > - Not on master > > - Not stabilizing or destabilizing the release branch > > and hence was merged. > > > > If maintainers disagree I can revert the same. > > > > Shyam > > > > [1] Release 4.1 dashboard: > > > > > https://review.gluster.org/#/projects/glusterfs,dashboards/dashboard:4-1-dashboard > > > > _______________________________________________ > > maintainers mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > > > > > > > -- > > Pranith > -- Pranith
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
