rebasing for oVirt 3.3.1?

[Itamar Heim]

On 09/09/2013 04:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 09:28 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 04:19 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2013 08:17 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
>>>> with 3.3.0 coming soon, one of the questions I heard is "what about
>>>> 3.3.1" considering the number of patches fox bugs that went into master
>>>> branch since since we branched to stabilize 3.3.0.
>>>> i.e., most of the work in master branch has been focused on bug fixes)
>>>>
>>>> so my suggestion is for 3.3.1 that we rebase from master, then move to
>>>> backporting patches to that branch for the rest of 3.3 time frame.
>>>>
>>>> while this poses a small risk, i believe its the best course forward to
>>>> making ovirt 3.3 a more robust and stable version going forward.
>>>>
>>>> this is mostly about ovirt-engine, and probably vdsm. for the other
>>>> projects, its up to the maintainer, based on risk/benefit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no objections as long as we're not taking features into the 3.3.1
>>> release and we're not changing the package set.  We had an issue with
>>> one of the 3.2.x updates where we pulled a change in vdsm that removed
>>> the vdsm-gluster package.  As long as we're making every effort to avoid
>>> features and avoid packaging changes, then I'm happy.
>>
>> i think there is a feature or two, but i think the version would still
>> be way better off with this, considering the ratio of patches that went
>> into it.
>
> Ok, can we at least make sure we call them out so we can list them in
> announcement email?

goes without saying.

I'm thinking we should create that branch asap (say, post wednesday 
ovirt meeting), to be able to start testing it, to be able to release 
3.3.1 in a few weeks.

probably with a mini test day around install flows and upgrade from 3.2 
and 3.3.0.

>
>>
>> I do expect us to do a bit more testing on it than if we didn't rebase,
>> but i think its worth it.
>>
>> (as a side note, i also think it will be worth while to release
>> hosted-engine in async to beta testing / release).
>
> Yes, hosted-engine is something we had discussed as an async feature and
> there were no objections to it going async.
>
> Mike
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>     Itamar
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Arch mailing list
>>>> Arch at ovirt.org
>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infra mailing list
>> Infra at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
>