+1 to DmitryB, I think in this particular time and case we should open
stable/5.1. But not to call it HCF [1].

Though I think we should retrospect our approaches here.

   1. Sometimes we can squash 30 bugs a day, and formally reach HCF. Though
   the day after we will get 30 New bugs from QA. We might want to reconsider
   the whole approach on criteria, and come up with "flow" instead. Like if we
   have <=5 High bugs at the moment, and over last 3 days we were seeing <10
   confirmed High/Critical bugs, then we can call for HCF (if 60 bugs in 3
   last days, then no way for HCF)
   2. Consumption of new OpenStack release is hard and will be as such
   unless we will be using Fuel in gating process for every patch being pushed
   to OpenStack upstream. We want to deploy Juno now for 6.0, and the only way
   to do it now - is to build all packages, try to run it, observe issues,
   fix,  run again, observe other issues... - and this process continues for
   many iterations before we get stable ISO which passes BVTs. It is obvious,
   that if we drop the Juno packages in, then our master is going to be broken.
   If we do any other feature development, then we don't know whether it's
   because Juno or that another feature. What should we do then?

My suggestion on #2 is that we could keep backward compatibility with
Icehouse code (on puppet side), and can continue to use BVT's, other
testing against master branch using both Icehouse packages and Juno. Thus
we can keep using gating process for fuel library, relying on stable
Icehouse version.

As for immediate action, again, I'm in favor of creating stable/5.1 in
order to unblock feature development in master, while we are fixing last
issues with OpenStack patching.

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Hard_Code_Freeze

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodae...@mirantis.com>

> TL;DR: Yes, our work on 6.0 features is currently blocked and it is
> becoming a major problem. No, I don't think we should create
> pre-release or feature branches. Instead, we should create stable/5.1
> branches and open master for 6.0 work.
> We have reached a point in 5.1 release cycle where the scope of issues
> we are willing to address in this release is narrow enough to not
> require full attention of the whole team. We have engineers working on
> 6.0 features, and their work is essentially blocked until they have
> somewhere to commit their changes.
> Simply creating new branches is not even close to solving this
> problem: we have a whole CI infrastructure around every active release
> series (currently 5.1, 5.0, 4.1), including test jobs for gerrit
> commits, package repository mirrors updates, ISO image builds, smoke,
> build verification, and swarm tests for ISO images, documentation
> builds, etc. A branch without all that infrastructure isn't any better
> than current status quo: every developer tracking their own 6.0 work
> locally.
> Unrelated to all that, we also had a lot of very negative experience
> with feature branches in the past [0] [1], which is why we have
> decided to follow the OpenStack branching strategy: commit all feature
> changes directly to master and track bugfixes for stable releases in
> stable/* branches.
> [0] https://lists.launchpad.net/fuel-dev/msg00127.html
> [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/fuel-dev/msg00028.html
> I'm also against declaring a "hard code freeze with exceptions", HCF
> should remain tied to our ability to declare a release candidate. If
> we can't release with the bugs we already know about, declaring HCF
> before fixing these bugs would be an empty gesture.
> Creating stable/5.1 now instead of waiting for hard code freeze for
> 5.1 will cost us two things:
> 1) DevOps team will have to update our CI infrastructure for one more
> release series. It's something we have to do for 6.0 sooner or later,
> so this may be a disruption, but not an additional effort.
> 2) All commits targeted for 5.1 will have to be proposed for two
> branches (master and stable/5.1) instead of just one (master). This
> will require additional effort, but I think that it is significantly
> smaller than the cost of spinning our wheels on 6.0 efforts.
> -DmitryB
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Mescheryakov
> <dmescherya...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> > Hello Fuelers,
> >
> > Right now we have the following policy in place: the branches for a
> > release are opened only after its 'parent' release have reached hard
> > code freeze (HCF). Say, 5.1 release is parent releases for 5.1.1 and
> > 6.0.
> >
> > And that is the problem: if parent release is delayed, we can't
> > properly start development of a child release because we don't have
> > branches to commit. That is current issue with 6.0: we already started
> > to work on pushing Juno in to 6.0, but if we are to make changes to
> > our deployment code we have nowhere to store them.
> >
> > IMHO the issue could easily be resolved by creation of pre-release
> > branches, which are merged together with parent branches once the
> > parent reaches HCF. Say, we use branch 'pre-6.0' for initial
> > development of 6.0. Once 5.1 reaches HCF, we merge pre-6.0 into master
> > and continue development here. After that pre-6.0 is abandoned.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dmitry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> --
> Dmitry Borodaenko
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Mike Scherbakov
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to