On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 14:57 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Soren Hansen wrote: > > 2011/11/9 Nachi Ueno <[email protected]>: > >> I understand your point. Stop QAing stable/diablo and focus on Essex. > > > > Oh, no no. That's not the point. I'm thrilled to have you work on > > QAing Diablo. The only issue is that the fixes you come up with should > > be pushed to Essex first. There are two reasons for this: > > > > * If we don't push the fixes to Essex, the problems will still be > > present in Essex and every release after that. > > > > * Having them in Essex lets us try them out, vet them and validate > > them more thoroughly before we let them into the stable branch. When a > > patch lands in the stable branch it has to be well tested already > > (unless of course Essex has deviated too much, in which case we'll > > have to accept the risk of getting it into Diablo directly). > > +1 > > You should submit patches to master and then backport them to > stable/diablo, rather than proposing them for stable/diablo directly. > That ensures your work benefits both branches: making diablo better > without making essex worse than diablo. > > If that's just too much work, maybe you should raise the issue at the > next QA meeting to try to get some outside help ?
At the QA meeting yesterday, I offered my help to Nati. I will handle proposing his patches to Essex up to a future date where Nati and his team will switch to code against Essex, not Diablo/stable and propose first to master, then others will backport to diablo/stable. Nati and I will decide on that future date for his team to switch their focus to Essex trunk and not have to have someone manually "forward-port" these patches to trunk. Cheers, -jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
