----- Original Message -----

From: "R P Herrold" <herrold@owlriver.com> To: "Tal Nisan" <tnisan@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:14:34 PM Subject: [Engine-devel] bug-url requirement for stable branch backports

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Tal Nisan wrote:

...

I think it will help stabilizing the new features in a short circle, sometimes there are small "fine tuning" fixes that don't have bugs opened for them and the flow is easier if you can just backport them without opening a bug.

On 01/30/2014 04:42 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:

...

I'm inclined to drop the "bug-url is required" for engine stable branch 3.4,

until we GA 3.4, as a lot of the patches are for pre-GA features.

I took Alon's comment as a -1, and do not understand the flow difficulty

No, I am for enforcing real bugs only since rc. Thus in favour of dropping this now. I am consistence to what I recommended in past (pre-3.3) as well.

Cloning a bug is a click and a bit of web trimming. Adding it as a dependency on its parent is typing a bug number in the proper field. It is very hard, unless sone follows both mailing lists, and commit mailing lists, to figure out some changes and if this is a backport (and not: "stabilizing the new features" as Tal mentions)

The thrashing in stabilization, and very fast gerrit approvals on the cpopen patch (it happened in hours, months ago) show the need to be explaining to a Bugzilla, what is happening. As near as I can tell the package succession is still not 'right' for upgrades [It seems to need a manual exclude in a yum repo config in one place, OR a manual Provides, OR an epoched EVR (!! NOT RECOMMENDED !!)]

-1

-- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

On 01/30/2014 07:14 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Tal Nisan wrote:

...

I think it will help stabilizing the new features in a short circle, sometimes there are small "fine tuning" fixes that don't have bugs opened for them and the flow is easier if you can just backport them without opening a bug.

On 01/30/2014 04:42 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:

...

I'm inclined to drop the "bug-url is required" for engine stable branch 3.4,

until we GA 3.4, as a lot of the patches are for pre-GA features.

I took Alon's comment as a -1, and do not understand the flow difficulty

Cloning a bug is a click and a bit of web trimming. Adding it as a dependency on its parent is typing a bug number in the proper field. It is very hard, unless sone follows both mailing lists, and commit mailing lists, to figure out some changes and if this is a backport (and not: "stabilizing the new features" as Tal mentions)

The thrashing in stabilization, and very fast gerrit approvals on the cpopen patch (it happened in hours, months ago) show the need to be explaining to a Bugzilla, what is happening. As near as I can tell the package succession is still not 'right' for upgrades [It seems to need a manual exclude in a yum repo config in one place, OR a manual Provides, OR an epoched EVR (!! NOT RECOMMENDED !!)]

-1

cpopen was in vdsm, this is about engine repo. backporting to stable branch has it overhead already. we forked early to make sure we are stabilizing rather than getting more forward-looking changes merged into master. however, as alon said, in that regard we forked 'early'. this incurs an overhead of backports already. looking at the patches i see, which are for stabilization, not all of them have a bug tracking them, and i don't see a reason forcing this for pre-rc as the main benefit of forcing bugs is tracking changes for release notes (that's to force creation of bugs post issues fixed, not using bugs to track issues). so if there is a bug, i expect it in bug-url for easier tracking, but i don't see the value in forcing it pre-rc.

-- Russ herrold