Jonas,

There may not be sufficient resources available prior to the opening of the
window.  So, this is a signal to the infra/CI team to be prepared to
support CI on both master and stable branch.  However, perhaps we could
consider expanding the window from 1 week to, say 2 weeks.

David

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jonas Bjurel <jonas.bju...@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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-bounces@
> lists.opnfv.org on behalf of 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 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>     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
>
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>
> IRC: dmcbride
>



-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 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

Reply via email to