On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Roan Kattouw <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012 3:44 PM, "Rob Lanphier" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Another possible plan would be to have something *somewhat* closer to >> what we have today, with new branches off of trunk for each >> deployment, and deployments happening as frequently as weekly. >> >> master >> ├── 1.20wmf01 >> ├── 1.20wmf02 >> ├── 1.20wmf03 >> ... >> ├── 1.20wmf11 >> ├── 1.20wmf12 >> ├── REL1_20 >> ├── 1.21wmf01 >> ├── 1.21wmf02 >> ├── 1.21wmf03 >> ... >> >> This is how I was envisioning the process working, and just didn't get >> a chance to sync up with Chad to find out what the issues of this >> approach would be. >> > This seems like the best approach to me, because it meshes with het deploy > better, as described by others on this thread. However, I'd recommend using > a naming convention with a prefix, e.g. wmf/1.20/01 , so we can handle > permissions on these deployment branches in a managable way. >
*nod* Makes sense. And Rob and I totally agree actually with how we should be handling deployments. We should branch from master liberally and often. When it comes time to do an actual scap, you should also tag your release so we have a clearly repeatable state if we need to roll-back or figure out what broke. Ideally, scap would become something like: `mw-deploy <tag> <wiki1,wiki2>` -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
