From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:57:55 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching I concur. There are too many flows broken on /master/ to consider the 3.5 branch anything remotely near "stable".

wrt to holding off 3.6 features, I can confirm that from the storage side nothing has been merged, and we can keep holding them back. -Allon ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:31:43 PM > Subject: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > Hi all, > > The test day revealed a large amount of issues. These issues are being > addressed in the last few days. > To avoid the need to back-port each and every one of them to the > ovirt-engine-3.5 stable branch, I suggest to give a few days for that > effort, > and revisit it on mid next week, to asses it again and decide whether to do > the branching then. > > I ask the different maintainers not to push 3.6 relevant material into > master > in the next few days, until the branching is done. > To my knowledge no major (or any) patch related to 3.6 has been merge on > master, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Thanks all for your efforts in stabilizing the version. > > Regards, > Oved > _______________________________________________ > 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

From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:20:13 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:27:18 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:57:55 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > I concur. > > > > There are too many flows broken on /master/ to consider the 3.5 branch > > anything remotely near "stable". > > Wouldn't it be better to keep the current branch as "stabilization branch" > and test extensively every patch that goes into it instead of keeping > adding > to the master branch and rebranch and then have the same or similar happen > in the next test day? > > If I remember correctly in the previous release cycle something similar > happened > in the engine an teams tried to push non critical or stabilization patches > after feature freeze. At the time, it was argued that this release cycle it > would be branch and backport. > > I realize, of course, that it is painstaking to backport a great amount of > patches, but this is a direct result of letting features get merged too > late > in the cycle and before being up to a certain standard of stability. > > I would say "let this backporting frenzy be a lesson to all to be more > conservative > with the timelines in the next cycle" but I understand the other side of > the > argument, so maybe instead we should just count with an extra week between > freeze and branching (note that this will delay review and merge of work > on master for the next feature reducing the chances of big features being > merged early-middle cycle. I agree with the sentiment, but I think your solution would be counter-productive. The main question here is what's the purpose of the stable branch? The way I understand it, the stable branch is a branch for you to build the system from, assert that the main functionality is working, and report bugs that need fixing before release. With the current "stable" branch, that's a losing effort. It's broken twelve ways from Sunday. Basic functionality does not work. Virtually every patch that fixes something in the master should also be applied to it, which in fact means we're manually rebasing, instead of letting git do it for us. This does not mean, however, that we shouldn't take time an retrospect how we got to this abysmal situation, and thinking of ways to prevent it in the future - it just means we should look forward instead of punishing ourselves for past transgressions.

> > > > > wrt to holding off 3.6 features, I can confirm that from the storage side > > nothing has been merged, and we can keep holding them back. > > > > > > -Allon > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:31:43 PM > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > The test day revealed a large amount of issues. These issues are being > > > addressed in the last few days. > > > To avoid the need to back-port each and every one of them to the > > > ovirt-engine-3.5 stable branch, I suggest to give a few days for that > > > effort, > > > and revisit it on mid next week, to asses it again and decide whether > > > to > > > do > > > the branching then. > > > > > > I ask the different maintainers not to push 3.6 relevant material into > > > master > > > in the next few days, until the branching is done. > > > To my knowledge no major (or any) patch related to 3.6 has been merge > > > on > > > master, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > > > Thanks all for your efforts in stabilizing the version. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Oved > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Sandro Tanaka" <stanaka(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 2:22:21 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > Cc: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Allon Mureinik" > <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" > <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Sandro Tanaka" <stanaka(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 10:50:41 AM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:20:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:27:18 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:57:55 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > > > > > I concur. > > > > > > > > There are too many flows broken on /master/ to consider the 3.5 > > > > branch > > > > anything remotely near "stable". > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to keep the current branch as "stabilization > > > branch" > > > and test extensively every patch that goes into it instead of keeping > > > adding > > > to the master branch and rebranch and then have the same or similar > > > happen > > > in the next test day? > > > > > > If I remember correctly in the previous release cycle something similar > > > happened > > > in the engine an teams tried to push non critical or stabilization > > > patches > > > after feature freeze. At the time, it was argued that this release > > > cycle > > > it > > > would be branch and backport. > > > > > > I realize, of course, that it is painstaking to backport a great amount > > > of > > > patches, but this is a direct result of letting features get merged too > > > late > > > in the cycle and before being up to a certain standard of stability. > > > > > > I would say "let this backporting frenzy be a lesson to all to be more > > > conservative > > > with the timelines in the next cycle" but I understand the other side > > > of > > > the > > > argument, so maybe instead we should just count with an extra week > > > between > > > freeze and branching (note that this will delay review and merge of > > > work > > > on master for the next feature reducing the chances of big features > > > being > > > merged early-middle cycle. > > > > I agree with the sentiment, but I think your solution would be > > counter-productive. > > > > The main question here is what's the purpose of the stable branch? > > The way I understand it, the stable branch is a branch for you to build > > the > > system from, assert that the main functionality is working, and report > > bugs > > that need fixing before release. > > > > With the current "stable" branch, that's a losing effort. It's broken > > twelve > > ways from Sunday. Basic functionality does not work. Virtually every > > patch > > that fixes something in the master should also be applied to it, which in > > fact means we're manually rebasing, instead of letting git do it for us. > > > > This does not mean, however, that we shouldn't take time an retrospect > > how > > we > > got to this abysmal situation, and thinking of ways to prevent it in the > > future - it just means we should look forward instead of punishing > > ourselves > > for past transgressions. > > Update: > we're planning to do the branch from master (rebase from HEAD), tomorrow > towards noon time. Why are we rebasing? Is there anything in the stable branch that isn't in master? Shouldn't we just delete this branch, and branch a new one from HEAD? > if you have any commits that are relevant only for 3.6 and not for 3.5, > please don't merge them yet > until we'll update the 3.5 stable branch. > > and email with the exact cutoff commits sha will be sent once the branch is > updated. > > thanks, > > Eyal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrt to holding off 3.6 features, I can confirm that from the storage > > > > side > > > > nothing has been merged, and we can keep holding them back. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Allon > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:31:43 PM > > > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > The test day revealed a large amount of issues. These issues are > > > > > being > > > > > addressed in the last few days. > > > > > To avoid the need to back-port each and every one of them to the > > > > > ovirt-engine-3.5 stable branch, I suggest to give a few days for > > > > > that > > > > > effort, > > > > > and revisit it on mid next week, to asses it again and decide > > > > > whether > > > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > the branching then. > > > > > > > > > > I ask the different maintainers not to push 3.6 relevant material > > > > > into > > > > > master > > > > > in the next few days, until the branching is done. > > > > > To my knowledge no major (or any) patch related to 3.6 has been > > > > > merge > > > > > on > > > > > master, but please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks all for your efforts in stabilizing the version. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Oved > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > >

Il 07/07/2014 09:50, Eyal Edri ha scritto: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:20:13 AM >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:27:18 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:57:55 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching >>>> >>>> I concur. >>>> >>>> There are too many flows broken on /master/ to consider the 3.5 branch >>>> anything remotely near "stable". >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to keep the current branch as "stabilization branch" >>> and test extensively every patch that goes into it instead of keeping >>> adding >>> to the master branch and rebranch and then have the same or similar happen >>> in the next test day? >>> >>> If I remember correctly in the previous release cycle something similar >>> happened >>> in the engine an teams tried to push non critical or stabilization patches >>> after feature freeze. At the time, it was argued that this release cycle it >>> would be branch and backport. >>> >>> I realize, of course, that it is painstaking to backport a great amount of >>> patches, but this is a direct result of letting features get merged too >>> late >>> in the cycle and before being up to a certain standard of stability. >>> >>> I would say "let this backporting frenzy be a lesson to all to be more >>> conservative >>> with the timelines in the next cycle" but I understand the other side of >>> the >>> argument, so maybe instead we should just count with an extra week between >>> freeze and branching (note that this will delay review and merge of work >>> on master for the next feature reducing the chances of big features being >>> merged early-middle cycle. >> >> I agree with the sentiment, but I think your solution would be >> counter-productive. >> >> The main question here is what's the purpose of the stable branch? >> The way I understand it, the stable branch is a branch for you to build the >> system from, assert that the main functionality is working, and report bugs >> that need fixing before release. >> >> With the current "stable" branch, that's a losing effort. It's broken twelve >> ways from Sunday. Basic functionality does not work. Virtually every patch >> that fixes something in the master should also be applied to it, which in >> fact means we're manually rebasing, instead of letting git do it for us. >> >> This does not mean, however, that we shouldn't take time an retrospect how we >> got to this abysmal situation, and thinking of ways to prevent it in the >> future - it just means we should look forward instead of punishing ourselves >> for past transgressions. > > Update: > we're planning to do the branch from master (rebase from HEAD), tomorrow towards noon time. > if you have any commits that are relevant only for 3.6 and not for 3.5, please don't merge them yet > until we'll update the 3.5 stable branch. > > and email with the exact cutoff commits sha will be sent once the branch is updated. > > thanks, > > Eyal. Since it seems there are still work in progress on completing features with exceptions, maybe better to postpone the branch update to next week, on Monday 08:00 UTC. Any objection?