Hi Yuriy,
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 11:38 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
> Since we're clear about how changes should be included in stable branches,
> are there any expectations on how often packages (e.g. Ubuntu ones) should
> be updated?
I've pushed out a Fedora 16 update with the latest stable branc
Since we're clear about how changes should be included in stable branches,
are there any expectations on how often packages (e.g. Ubuntu ones) should
be updated?
Kind regards, Yuriy.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:42, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:03 +, Mark
Hi James,
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:03 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> > Mark McLoughlin writes:
> > > Only folks that understand the stable branch policy[1] should be
> > > allowed to +2 on the stable branch.
> > >
> > > Basically, a sta
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 08:57 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:11 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
> >> I wonder if we should keep Change ID consistent in stable and master
> >> branches so that if one merged something into master, reviewers
> >> and
Mark McLoughlin writes:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:11 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
>> I wonder if we should keep Change ID consistent in stable and master
>> branches so that if one merged something into master, reviewers
>> and archaeologists can easily find both related changes in master and all
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:11 +0400, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
> I wonder if we should keep Change ID consistent in stable and master
> branches so that if one merged something into master, reviewers
> and archaeologists can easily find both related changes in master and all
> backports of specific change
I wonder if we should keep Change ID consistent in stable and master
branches so that if one merged something into master, reviewers
and archaeologists can easily find both related changes in master and all
backports of specific change.
The simple scenario is: push change into master, then cherry-
Hi Dave,
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 17:33 +, Dave Walker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:02:23AM -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
>
> >
> > > But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
> > >
> > > https://review.openstack.org/328
> > >
> > > James, help a poor confused soul out here,
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:02 -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin writes:
> > Only folks that understand the stable branch policy[1] should be
> > allowed to +2 on the stable branch.
> >
> > Basically, a stable branch reviewer should only +2 if:
> >
> > - It fixes a significant issue,
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 09:02 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/328
>
>
> I don't mind losing my powers over stable/diablo.
>
> On a related note,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:02:23AM -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
>
> > But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/328
> >
> > James, help a poor confused soul out here, would you? :)
> >
> > Right, that makes sense. Only folks that understand the st
On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> But wait! Vish +2ed a stable branch patch yesterday:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/328
I don't mind losing my powers over stable/diablo.
On a related note, is there a way we can change the color scheme in gerrit (to
red??) for stable
Mark McLoughlin writes:
>> To mitigate that, we decided that the group doing stable branch
>> maintenance would be a separate group (i.e. *not* core developers), and
>> we decided that whatever ends up in the stable branch must first land in
>> the master branch.
>
> Well, I recall it a little di
Hey,
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:50 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Since there seems to be some confusion around master vs. stable/diablo
> vs. core reviewers, I think it warrants a small thread.
>
> When at the Design Summit we discussed setting up stable branches, I
> warned abou
++
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Since there seems to be some confusion around master vs. stable/diablo
> vs. core reviewers, I think it warrants a small thread.
>
> When at the Design Summit we discussed setting up stable branches, I
> warned about the
Hi everyone,
Since there seems to be some confusion around master vs. stable/diablo
vs. core reviewers, I think it warrants a small thread.
When at the Design Summit we discussed setting up stable branches, I
warned about the risks that setting them up brings for trunk development:
1) Reduce res
16 matches
Mail list logo
