From: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz>
To: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>, Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Schoen <aschoen@redhat.com>,
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>,
Alfredo Deza <adeza@redhat.com>, Abhishek <abhishek@suse.com>,
ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Better anticipation for minor releases
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 22:20:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8a320a2d-71a2-84e3-79c0-1839c4cd7391@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1802051624220.15996@piezo.novalocal>
> Git branches remove any concern for
> "races". If someone pushed 100 commits to luminous, just create a
> different branch with exactly the commit(s) you *do* want and build from
> that. After everything is confirmed built, good, and tagged, push and
> merge it back into the luminous stream.
Sage makes a good point here, but I don't agree with the "remove any
concern for races" part. In practice, I'm envisioning that it would work
like this (substitute "jewel", "mimic" etc. for luminous):
1. release preparation phase begins
2. lots of PRs/commits are merged into luminous
3. release preparation phase ends with declaration of a "release
candidate" SHA1
4. a luminous-rc branch is created from this SHA1
5. QE phase begins
6. all QE work takes place in luminous-rc
7. any QE-related fixes are merged into luminous-rc
8. QE phase ends with declaration of a "release" SHA1 which is (almost -
see below) guaranteed to be the tip of luminous-rc
9. tag/build phase begins
10. tag is applied to, and packages built from, tip of luminous-rc (as
usual, except luminous-rc instead of luminous)
11. tag/build phase ends - point release is out
12. luminous-rc is merged into luminous
Granted, this does eliminate racing PRs in luminous, but it's still
possible for something to get merged into luminous-rc after step 8 and
before step 11, so the problem doesn't go away - it just gets less likely.
Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-05 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-31 17:46 Better anticipation for minor releases Alfredo Deza
2018-01-31 19:25 ` Abhishek
2018-01-31 19:35 ` Ken Dreyer
2018-02-02 12:05 ` Alfredo Deza
2018-02-02 12:28 ` Nathan Cutler
2018-02-02 17:15 ` Ken Dreyer
2018-02-02 19:55 ` Robin H. Johnson
2018-02-02 20:15 ` Vasu Kulkarni
2018-02-02 21:35 ` Nathan Cutler
2018-02-02 21:52 ` Robin H. Johnson
2018-02-05 15:28 ` Andrew Schoen
2018-02-05 15:50 ` Sage Weil
2018-02-05 16:22 ` Ken Dreyer
2018-02-05 16:30 ` Sage Weil
2018-02-05 21:20 ` Nathan Cutler [this message]
2018-02-05 21:32 ` Yuri Weinstein
2018-02-05 21:45 ` Vasu Kulkarni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8a320a2d-71a2-84e3-79c0-1839c4cd7391@suse.cz \
--to=ncutler@suse.cz \
--cc=abhishek@suse.com \
--cc=adeza@redhat.com \
--cc=aschoen@redhat.com \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kdreyer@redhat.com \
--cc=robbat2@gentoo.org \
--cc=sage@newdream.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.