I thought that may be, some of the work Ihar is proposing, could be
automated.
Like, for example, checking if bug fixes are backportable as-is to the
previous stable
branches, and if they pass testing.
If that's the case, the bot could automatically automatically add the
bug to the list, or
flag it with some sort of specific flag, so, we humans could verify it
does make sense
to backport such bug, and if it actually meets the "backportable"
guidelines.
Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ihar Hrachyshka [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 1:34 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron][stable] proactive backporting
Hi all,
I’d like to introduce a new initiative around stable branches for neutron
official projects (neutron, neutron-*aas, python-neutronclient) that is
intended to straighten our backporting process and make us more proactive
in fixing bugs in stable branches. ‘Proactive' meaning: don’t wait until a
known bug hits a user that consumes stable branches, but backport fixes in
advance quickly after they hit master.
The idea is simple: every Fri I walk thru the new commits merged into master
since last check; produce lists of bugs that are mentioned in Related-
Bug/Closes-Bug; paste them into:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/stable-bug-candidates-from-master
Then I click thru the bug report links to determine whether it’s worth a
backport and briefly classify them. If I have cycles, I also request backports
where it’s easy (== a mere 'Cherry-Pick to' button click).
After that, those interested in maintaining neutron stable branches can take
those bugs one by one and handle them, which means: checking where it
really applies for backport; creating backport reviews (solving conflicts,
making tests pass). After it’s up for review for all branches affected and
applicable, the bug is removed from the list.
I started on that path two weeks ago, doing initial swipe thru all commits
starting from stable/liberty spin off. If enough participants join the process,
we may think of going back into git history to backport interesting fixes from
stable/liberty into stable/kilo.
Don’t hesitate to ask about details of the process, and happy backporting,
Ihar
Hi,
This looks like neat way to do it. In Glance we're doing constantly proactive backporting
and I have been nominating bugs for series' and approving backports for a while now. We
prefer not to have user coming to us and telling that they hit to bug in
"stable" we had known already for ages, just didn't bother to backport the fix.
It has worked out really well and people are learning to propose these without me
needing to read every single commit message.
Good luck, has worked great for us!
- Erno
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
