(Dropping Leo, since it doesn't affect him. He's already subscribed to
the list.)

On 6 April 2018 at 19:20, Mark Janes <mark.a.ja...@intel.com> wrote:

> I agree with you, however our release process still has a gap.  We
> (Intel) test commits on master, and file bugs when we find them in i965
> or other components.
> If those commits already have a stable tag in the commit message, they
> will be shipped at a later date directly to customers, with no testing.
> There is no way to blacklist broken patches in our Mesa's release
> automation.
That's why I mentioned that the process cannot be fully automated ;-)

Let me try to explain slightly differently. Amongst others you want:

a) 24h (ish) buffer (getting closer to 0, as we reach the pre-release
announcement) before landing fix in the stable branch.

We had broken _badly_ a few multiple times, a balance between the two
is essential.

Looking at it from Jenkins POV:
You don't want to test/bisect that master is broken, only to apply
same patch and run Jenkins on the same broken patch.

 - when issues to happen for example: fdo#103626 currently there's two
ways to handle it

1) add the commit to bin/.cherry-ignore. latter of which means that
you miss the patch when it's actually fixed up.
See a094314340387ef2463ed8b4ddc9317bc539832b for context.

2) carefully/manually git cherry-pick
Doing this allowed me to add the regression to the tracker, as
otherwise we would have missed it for 18.0.0 ;-)

Yet we could introduce on-hold list to cherry-ignore. It's fairly trivial.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer.

mesa-dev mailing list

Reply via email to