I don’t see why we need a OPNFV policy on when earliest a stable branch could happen – please explain! BR/Jonas
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of David McBride Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:58 PM To: Christopher Price <chrispric...@gmail.com> Cc: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release] D-release schedule I think that we've reduced the branch-related overhead in 'Danube' by closing the stable branch window just 10 days before the release, as opposed to about a month with Colorado. My concern about individual projects deciding whether to branch is that I think that it creates some confusion about the location of the candidate release. I think it's simpler and more predictable if we have a common process for all projects participating in the release. David On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Christopher Price <chrispric...@gmail.com<mailto:chrispric...@gmail.com>> wrote: We are making some progress. While I do agree with this: “I think projects should have autonomy over when branches are created.”. I also think it is up to the release project to set the projects with the latest date to do it if they want to participate in any given release. I think that’s essentially what we are trying to tune and optimize for everyone in this dialog. / Chris On 13/09/16 16:10, "Dave Neary" <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of dne...@redhat.com<mailto:dne...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, On 09/13/2016 06:42 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote: > one thing that we’ve not closed on in the discussion last Tuesday is the > stable-branching milestone. Per what Morgan and I elaborated on: > Branching occurs a lot of unnecessary overhead for projects which have a > single development stream only. Hence I’d like to propose that > > · the branching milestones **prior** to the release should > **only** be applied to projects which do parallel development. > > · All other projects would branch on the release date – so that we > have a proper maintenance branch. > > Thoughts? I'm in favour of anything that removes process overhead from projects - I think projects should have autonomy over when branches are created. Thanks, Dave. -- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182<tel:%2B1-978-399-2182> / Cell: +1-978-799-3338<tel:%2B1-978-799-3338> _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss -- David McBride Release Manager, OPNFV Mobile: +1.805.276.8018<tel:%2B1.805.276.8018> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> Skype: davidjmcbride1 IRC: dmcbride
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
