[Puppet-dev] Re: Non-breaking changes and puppet 3.7.x
On 2014-05-12 3:56, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Henrik Lindberg henrik.lindb...@cloudsmith.com mailto:henrik.lindb...@cloudsmith.com wrote: On 2014-04-12 22:24, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: * non-breaking changes should default to 3.7.x until some time passes after 4.0 is out Eh, no, not in general please. We have lots of code removal and anything that needs to go through the process of being implemented both an old and a new way should not be done at all on stable IMO except if there is burning need / bug. We have removed lots of code to save us work, remove complexity etc. I am fine with non-breaking /bug fixes/ should default to 3.7.x until some time passes after 4.0 is out. Ah yes, I agree. I was thinking bug fixes specifically (but the wrong words came out). Maybe the criteria are more like non-breaking bug fixes, not in support of any deprecated features, and trivially merged up to 4.x or some such. There is no need to rename branches. I *think* we'd still need an additional branch if we want to support any level of changes to 3.7.x after 4.0 is released b/c we'd have: * branch for 3.7.x * branch for 4.0.x * branch for 4.1/5.0 which could be named 3.7.x/stable/master respectively (although we should discuss Josh H's comment too). Or am I missing your point here? You are right when we reach 4.0.0, we will use stable for 4.0.x, and master for 4.x, so we do need a 3.7.x branch. The workflow will be backwards compatible bugfixes that do not involve removed features go to 3.7.x, then stable, and then master. And as you said, the work is really setting up CI and have the extra 3.7.x branch being managed. - henrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Puppet Developers group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/m5snkc%24bn2%241%40ger.gmane.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[Puppet-dev] Re: Non-breaking changes and puppet 3.7.x
On 2014-04-12 22:24, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: * non-breaking changes should default to 3.7.x until some time passes after 4.0 is out Eh, no, not in general please. We have lots of code removal and anything that needs to go through the process of being implemented both an old and a new way should not be done at all on stable IMO except if there is burning need / bug. We have removed lots of code to save us work, remove complexity etc. I am fine with non-breaking /bug fixes/ should default to 3.7.x until some time passes after 4.0 is out. There is no need to rename branches. -- Visit my Blog Puppet on the Edge http://puppet-on-the-edge.blogspot.se/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Puppet Developers group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/m5qrof%24dsg%241%40ger.gmane.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Puppet-dev] Re: Non-breaking changes and puppet 3.7.x
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Henrik Lindberg henrik.lindb...@cloudsmith.com wrote: On 2014-04-12 22:24, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: * non-breaking changes should default to 3.7.x until some time passes after 4.0 is out Eh, no, not in general please. We have lots of code removal and anything that needs to go through the process of being implemented both an old and a new way should not be done at all on stable IMO except if there is burning need / bug. We have removed lots of code to save us work, remove complexity etc. I am fine with non-breaking /bug fixes/ should default to 3.7.x until some time passes after 4.0 is out. Ah yes, I agree. I was thinking bug fixes specifically (but the wrong words came out). Maybe the criteria are more like non-breaking bug fixes, not in support of any deprecated features, and trivially merged up to 4.x or some such. There is no need to rename branches. I *think* we'd still need an additional branch if we want to support any level of changes to 3.7.x after 4.0 is released b/c we'd have: * branch for 3.7.x * branch for 4.0.x * branch for 4.1/5.0 which could be named 3.7.x/stable/master respectively (although we should discuss Josh H's comment too). Or am I missing your point here? Actually my biggest concern with three branches is keeping the CI pipeline alive (since it needs care and re-kicks for various reasons). Perhaps at some point post-4.0, the 3.7.x branch could have some community stewards? We did something like this for 2.7.x. Kylo -- Visit my Blog Puppet on the Edge http://puppet-on-the-edge.blogspot.se/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Puppet Developers group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/puppet-dev/m5qrof%24dsg%241%40ger.gmane.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Kylo Ginsberg | k...@puppetlabs.com | irc: kylo | twitter: @kylog *Join us at **PuppetConf 2015, October 5-9 in Portland, OR - * http://2015.puppetconf.com. *Register early to save 40%!* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Puppet Developers group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/CALsUZFHLtfNd-39yw7xA5jdZQ35jF0i%3D23PBKooarKRVsHOCEw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
