On 14 Jul 2020, at 12:11, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:43 AM Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Hi all, > we’re moving to 4.4.z development now and we need to keep a closer eye on automation results and making sure the build is not broken. For these reasons we’re considering moving to a similar model as vdsm, having a smaller set of people with merge rights to make sure the patches get in in the right order and they meet our sanity standards (OST, bug’s TM) > Any objections/comments? Any reason to not simply branch 4.4? And have the branch maintained by the stable branches maintainers?

-- Didi

On 14 Jul 2020, at 15:33, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:21 PM Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com <mailto:michal.skrivanek@redhat.com>> wrote: > On 14 Jul 2020, at 12:11, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com <mailto:didi@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:43 AM Michal Skrivanek > <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com <mailto:michal.skrivanek@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> we’re moving to 4.4.z development now and we need to keep a closer eye on automation results and making sure the build is not broken. For these reasons we’re considering moving to a similar model as vdsm, having a smaller set of people with merge rights to make sure the patches get in in the right order and they meet our sanity standards (OST, bug’s TM) >> Any objections/comments? > > Any reason to not simply branch 4.4? And have the branch maintained by > the stable branches maintainers? just the sheer amount of backports needed (every patch). Doesn’t sound worth the effort of posting and reviewing(even if just formally) everything twice. If you expect _every_ patch to be backported

, just do nothing - let current maintainers do their job, and revert the occasional bad ones when needed.

Otherwise, I think branching is a good approach. > -- > Didi > -- Didi

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:05 PM Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On 14 Jul 2020, at 15:33, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:21 PM Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 14 Jul 2020, at 12:11, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:43 AM Michal Skrivanek >> > <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> we’re moving to 4.4.z development now and we need to keep a closer eye on automation results and making sure the build is not broken. For these reasons we’re considering moving to a similar model as vdsm, having a smaller set of people with merge rights to make sure the patches get in in the right order and they meet our sanity standards (OST, bug’s TM) >> >> Any objections/comments? >> > >> > Any reason to not simply branch 4.4? And have the branch maintained by >> > the stable branches maintainers? >> >> just the sheer amount of backports needed (every patch). Doesn’t sound worth the effort of posting and reviewing(even if just formally) everything twice. > > > If you expect _every_ patch to be backported We are trying to minimize backports between master and stabilization branches by creating the stabilization branch as late as possible. This means that both branches use 4.4 database script numbering, which should decrease the need for backports.

If we would create standard ovirt-engine-4.4 branch, then we would need to introduce 4.5 db scripts numbering on master

and this would create huge overload when backporting all patches from master to ovirt-engine-4.4 So current master is meant to be our 4.4.2 release and we have ovirt-engine-4.4.1.z stabilization branch. Later we will create ovirt-engine-4.4.2.z stabilization branch and master will become 4.4.3 release and so on.

> > yes > > , just do nothing - let current maintainers do their job, and revert the occasional bad ones when needed. > > > And how would you prevent breaking the relatively frequent updates? The CI OST is not working very well (for a long time now) and while we are improving and stabilizing the infrastrucure it’s not really there yet to consider automated gating. > Engine is unique in oVirt set of projects, it’s the largest one by far and use maintainership per team or area (FE, BE, database, API…) and so we have a pretty high number of people merging patches but far less people keeping up to date with the project’s planning. > > > > Otherwise, I think branching is a good approach. > >> >> >> > -- >> > Didi >> > >> > > > -- > Didi > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list -- devel(a)ovirt.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)ovirt.org > Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html > oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ > List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/EDI64EBEIJC... -- Martin Perina Manager, Software Engineering Red Hat Czech s.r.o.