[ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching

Eyal Edri eedri at redhat.com
Mon Jul 7 11:55:54 UTC 2014 

yes, basically the same thing.
no issue in deleting the branch and re-creating, just semantics.

e.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini at redhat.com>
> To: "Eyal Edri" <eedri at redhat.com>
> Cc: devel at ovirt.org, "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap at redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo at redhat.com>, "Sandro
> Tanaka" <stanaka at redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 2:22:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri at redhat.com>
> > To: devel at ovirt.org
> > Cc: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap at redhat.com>, "Allon Mureinik"
> > <amureini at redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
> > <ovedo at redhat.com>, "Sandro Tanaka" <stanaka at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 10:50:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-engine-3.5 branching
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Allon Mureinik" <amureini at redhat.com>
> > > To: "Antoni Segura Puimedon" <asegurap at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
> > > > To: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo at redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew at redhat.com>, devel at 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 at redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: devel at ovirt.org
> > > > > > Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <pkliczew at redhat.com>
> > > > > > 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 at ovirt.org
> > > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > > Devel at ovirt.org
> > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > Devel at ovirt.org
> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Devel mailing list
> > > Devel at ovirt.org
> > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > 
> > 
>

More information about the Devel mailing list