3:23 a.m.
Hi all,
patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
expect quite few double backports.
Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
Bests,
--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
3:37 a.m.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
Aren't we releasing 4.1.2 tomorrow? Why branching now?
The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
expect quite few double backports.
Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
Bests,
--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA
ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
<https://red.ht/sig>
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
4:29 a.m.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
expect quite few double backports.
Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
+1
Bests,
--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
4:52 a.m.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
expect quite few double backports.
Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
1. Go for it.
2. Let's see what the outcome is. How many 'merge races' we have, how many
regressions (hopefully none), how much work is poured into it, so we'll
learn from the future if we should branch sooner or is it OK to wait - and
until when.
Y.
Bests,
--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
5:11 a.m.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
> branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
>
> The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
> expect quite few double backports.
>
>
> Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
1. Go for it.
2. Let's see what the outcome is. How many 'merge races' we have, how many
regressions (hopefully none), how much work is poured into it,
Do you want for the new branch full CI coverage? Just branching takes a few
seconds, and almost no resources (except for mental ones, in developers'
minds). CI takes more time and more resources.
so we'll
learn from the future if we should branch sooner or is it OK to wait - and
until when.
We had recently a private discussion about this, with no final conclusion
AFAIR. I suggested (and repeat now) to fully automate this - so that project
maintainers have in the gerrit UI checkboxes for CI per branch. This definitely
takes time, and was considered not worth it, with the assumption that if we do
our work well, we almost never need z branches - that we should aim to push
and merge almost all the patches for some z version right after z-1 was
released, and not postpone this to later on, when we already want to work on
z+1 - and those late-comers that do want/need a branch should verify their
patches manually and not need CI.
Y.
>
>
>
> Bests,
>
> --
> Francesco Romani
> Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
> Red Hat
> IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Didi
5:32 a.m.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
>> branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
>>
>> The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
>> expect quite few double backports.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
>
>
> 1. Go for it.
> 2. Let's see what the outcome is. How many 'merge races' we have, how
many
> regressions (hopefully none), how much work is poured into it,
Do you want for the new branch full CI coverage?
I don't think it should, since the stable branch which is a superset of it
should all the patches as well and will fail
before backporting to the new branch.
Yes, there might be rare occasions where a patch will fail on version
branch and not stable branch,
I'm not sure its worth the effort of duplicating all CI resources per
branch just for it.
We already don't cover all flows in CI because there are limited resources,
so I don't see a huge difference here.
We can always run verification on the final bits via manual job before
releasing to catch such cases.
Just branching takes a few
seconds, and almost no resources (except for mental ones, in developers'
minds). CI takes more time and more resources.
> so we'll
> learn from the future if we should branch sooner or is it OK to wait -
and
> until when.
We had recently a private discussion about this, with no final conclusion
AFAIR. I suggested (and repeat now) to fully automate this - so that
project
maintainers have in the gerrit UI checkboxes for CI per branch. This
definitely
takes time, and was considered not worth it, with the assumption that if
we do
our work well, we almost never need z branches - that we should aim to push
and merge almost all the patches for some z version right after z-1 was
released, and not postpone this to later on, when we already want to work
on
z+1 - and those late-comers that do want/need a branch should verify their
patches manually and not need CI.
> Y.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bests,
>>
>> --
>> Francesco Romani
>> Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
>> Red Hat
>> IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Didi
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Eyal edri
ASSOCIATE MANAGER
RHV DevOps
EMEA VIRTUALIZATION R&D
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
<https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
3:27 a.m.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------27E0ADBF61E3BA881C5FCF40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 05/22/2017 12:32 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com
<mailto:didi@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com
<mailto:ykaul@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Francesco Romani
<fromani(a)redhat.com <mailto:fromani@redhat.com>>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
>> branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
>>
>> The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
>> expect quite few double backports.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
>
>
> 1. Go for it.
> 2. Let's see what the outcome is. How many 'merge races' we
have, how many
> regressions (hopefully none), how much work is poured into it,
Do you want for the new branch full CI coverage?
I don't think it should, since the stable branch which is a superset
of it should all the patches as well and will fail
before backporting to the new branch.
Yes, there might be rare occasions where a patch will fail on version
branch and not stable branch,
I'm not sure its worth the effort of duplicating all CI resources per
branch just for it.
We already don't cover all flows in CI because there are limited
resources, so I don't see a huge difference here.
We can always run verification on the final bits via manual job before
releasing to catch such cases.
I agree with Eyal. Furthermore 4.1.2 is released, so I expect
low-to-none activity on that ovirt-4.1.2 branch.
The merging activity on the branch ovirt-4.1 resumed, the merge window
is now open again for 4.1.3.
Bests,
--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
--------------27E0ADBF61E3BA881C5FCF40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 05/22/2017 12:32 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACuV_Hq6yg6qjDuhhf+5xnO7HL5jFxHKM_4ouYpK0RAuzpNw_g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM,
Yedidyah Bar David <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:didi@redhat.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">didi(a)redhat.com</a>&gt;</span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Yaniv Kaul
<<a href="mailto:ykaul@redhat.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">ykaul(a)redhat.com</a>&gt;
wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Francesco Romani
<<a href="mailto:fromani@redhat.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">fromani(a)redhat.com</a>&gt;<br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up,
so I'm thinking about<br>
>> branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)<br>
>><br>
>> The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low
lately, so we should<br>
>> expect quite few double backports.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone
objects.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 1. Go for it.<br>
> 2. Let's see what the outcome is. How many 'merge
races' we have, how many<br>
> regressions (hopefully none), how much work is
poured into it,<br>
<br>
</span>Do you want for the new branch full CI coverage?
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think it should, since the stable branch which
is a superset of it should all the patches as well and
will fail</div>
<div>before backporting to the new branch.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, there might be rare occasions where a patch will
fail on version branch and not stable branch,</div>
<div>I'm not sure its worth the effort of duplicating all CI
resources per branch just for it.</div>
<div>We already don't cover all flows in CI because there
are limited resources, so I don't see a huge difference
here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We can always run verification on the final bits via
manual job before releasing to catch such cases. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree with Eyal. Furthermore 4.1.2 is released, so I expect
low-to-none activity on that ovirt-4.1.2 branch.<br>
The merging activity on the branch ovirt-4.1 resumed, the merge
window is now open again for 4.1.3.<br>
<br>
Bests,<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------27E0ADBF61E3BA881C5FCF40--
3:33 a.m.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On 05/22/2017 12:32 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Francesco Romani <fromani(a)redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >>
> >> patches against the 4.1 branch are piling up, so I'm thinking about
> >> branching out 4.1.2 tomorrow (20170523)
> >>
> >> The activity on the 4.1.2 front was quite low lately, so we should
> >> expect quite few double backports.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts? I'll go forward and branch if noone objects.
> >
> >
> > 1. Go for it.
> > 2. Let's see what the outcome is. How many 'merge races' we have,
how
> many
> > regressions (hopefully none), how much work is poured into it,
>
> Do you want for the new branch full CI coverage?
I don't think it should, since the stable branch which is a superset of it
should all the patches as well and will fail
before backporting to the new branch.
Yes, there might be rare occasions where a patch will fail on version
branch and not stable branch,
I'm not sure its worth the effort of duplicating all CI resources per
branch just for it.
We already don't cover all flows in CI because there are limited
resources, so I don't see a huge difference here.
We can always run verification on the final bits via manual job before
releasing to catch such cases.
I agree with Eyal. Furthermore 4.1.2 is released, so I expect low-to-none
activity on that ovirt-4.1.2 branch.
The merging activity on the branch ovirt-4.1 resumed, the merge window is
now open again for 4.1.3.
+1.
Also, one thing we can consider for next time is to allow merging earlier
on stable branch and if we see that
we still need patches for 4.1.2, we can always create a new branch from the
latest tag for 4.1.2.
Bests,
--
Francesco Romani
Senior SW Eng., Virtualization R&D
Red Hat
IRC: fromani github: @fromanirh
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Eyal edri
ASSOCIATE MANAGER
RHV DevOps
EMEA VIRTUALIZATION R&D
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
<https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
2742
days inactive
2743
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Eyal Edri -
Francesco Romani -
Nir Soffer -
Sandro Bonazzola -
Yaniv Kaul -
Yedidyah Bar David