[ironic] [release] RFC: stop doing bugfix branches for Bifrost?
Hi team!
Some time ago we introduced bugfix/X.Y branches [1] to some of the Ironic projects. This has worked pretty well and has been very helpful in ironic/inspector/IPA, but I have second thoughts about Bifrost.
First, maintaining Bifrost branches is tedious enough because of how many distros we support and how quickly they change.
Second, our recommended approach to using Bifrost is to git-clone master and work from it. I'm honestly unsure if the regular stable branches are used (outside of the Kolla CI), let alone bugfix branches. (I also doubt that Bifrost releases are very popular or even meaningful, but that's another topic.)
As one of few people who is maintaining bugfix branches, I suggest we stop making them for Bifrost and switch Bifrost back to normal cycle-with-intermediaries. We can keep releasing 3x per cycle, just to have checkpoints, but only create "normal" stable branches.
Thoughts?
Dmitry
[1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/new-releas...
+1, drop the bugfix branches on bifrost.
There are two cases where we've seen people want or need to use *stable* branches in bifrost.
1) "I want to run some precise stable branch of all the things because surely the stable branch will have every fix for better experience." 2) "I want to run a precise version and need behavior which has been removed in newer releases.
Only the latter has really been a case where they have *had* to use a stable branch of bifrost, since bifrost has long supported specific branch/tag overrides for what to install from source. The same capability has often allowed those with the fromer desire to tune exactly what they want/desire if they know they need that aspect.
-Julia
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:13 AM Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur@redhat.com wrote:
Hi team!
Some time ago we introduced bugfix/X.Y branches [1] to some of the Ironic projects. This has worked pretty well and has been very helpful in ironic/inspector/IPA, but I have second thoughts about Bifrost.
First, maintaining Bifrost branches is tedious enough because of how many distros we support and how quickly they change.
Second, our recommended approach to using Bifrost is to git-clone master and work from it. I'm honestly unsure if the regular stable branches are used (outside of the Kolla CI), let alone bugfix branches. (I also doubt that Bifrost releases are very popular or even meaningful, but that's another topic.)
As one of few people who is maintaining bugfix branches, I suggest we stop making them for Bifrost and switch Bifrost back to normal cycle-with-intermediaries. We can keep releasing 3x per cycle, just to have checkpoints, but only create "normal" stable branches.
Thoughts?
Dmitry
[1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/new-releas...
-- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
Thanks for starting this Dmitry!
+1 to drop the bugfix branches for Bifrost.
Em ter., 18 de jan. de 2022 às 16:24, Julia Kreger < juliaashleykreger@gmail.com> escreveu:
+1, drop the bugfix branches on bifrost.
There are two cases where we've seen people want or need to use *stable* branches in bifrost.
- "I want to run some precise stable branch of all the things because
surely the stable branch will have every fix for better experience." 2) "I want to run a precise version and need behavior which has been removed in newer releases.
Only the latter has really been a case where they have *had* to use a stable branch of bifrost, since bifrost has long supported specific branch/tag overrides for what to install from source. The same capability has often allowed those with the fromer desire to tune exactly what they want/desire if they know they need that aspect.
-Julia
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:13 AM Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur@redhat.com wrote:
Hi team!
Some time ago we introduced bugfix/X.Y branches [1] to some of the
Ironic projects. This has worked pretty well and has been very helpful in ironic/inspector/IPA, but I have second thoughts about Bifrost.
First, maintaining Bifrost branches is tedious enough because of how
many distros we support and how quickly they change.
Second, our recommended approach to using Bifrost is to git-clone master
and work from it. I'm honestly unsure if the regular stable branches are used (outside of the Kolla CI), let alone bugfix branches. (I also doubt that Bifrost releases are very popular or even meaningful, but that's another topic.)
As one of few people who is maintaining bugfix branches, I suggest we
stop making them for Bifrost and switch Bifrost back to normal cycle-with-intermediaries. We can keep releasing 3x per cycle, just to have checkpoints, but only create "normal" stable branches.
I loved this idea!
Thoughts?
Dmitry
[1]
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/new-releas...
-- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 19:27, Julia Kreger juliaashleykreger@gmail.com wrote:
+1, drop the bugfix branches on bifrost.
There are two cases where we've seen people want or need to use *stable* branches in bifrost.
- "I want to run some precise stable branch of all the things because
surely the stable branch will have every fix for better experience." 2) "I want to run a precise version and need behavior which has been removed in newer releases.
Only the latter has really been a case where they have *had* to use a stable branch of bifrost, since bifrost has long supported specific branch/tag overrides for what to install from source. The same capability has often allowed those with the fromer desire to tune exactly what they want/desire if they know they need that aspect.
Kayobe consumes the bifrost stable branches. We often get bitten by changes to bifrost (and its deps) in master, and the stable branches shield us from this while allowing for bug fixes.
Secondly, while the version of bifrost & its dependencies isn't tied to those of the cloud infrastructure, it does simplify things somewhat to be able to say everything is running code from series X.
We don't use the bugfix branches.
Mark
-Julia
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:13 AM Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur@redhat.com wrote:
Hi team!
Some time ago we introduced bugfix/X.Y branches [1] to some of the Ironic projects. This has worked pretty well and has been very helpful in ironic/inspector/IPA, but I have second thoughts about Bifrost.
First, maintaining Bifrost branches is tedious enough because of how many distros we support and how quickly they change.
Second, our recommended approach to using Bifrost is to git-clone master and work from it. I'm honestly unsure if the regular stable branches are used (outside of the Kolla CI), let alone bugfix branches. (I also doubt that Bifrost releases are very popular or even meaningful, but that's another topic.)
As one of few people who is maintaining bugfix branches, I suggest we stop making them for Bifrost and switch Bifrost back to normal cycle-with-intermediaries. We can keep releasing 3x per cycle, just to have checkpoints, but only create "normal" stable branches.
Thoughts?
Dmitry
[1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/new-releas...
-- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
+1 to stop creating and maintaining bugfix branches for bifrost
it's been an interesting experiment but they're not really as useful as expected
Riccardo
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:16 PM Mark Goddard mark@stackhpc.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 19:27, Julia Kreger juliaashleykreger@gmail.com wrote:
+1, drop the bugfix branches on bifrost.
There are two cases where we've seen people want or need to use *stable* branches in bifrost.
- "I want to run some precise stable branch of all the things because
surely the stable branch will have every fix for better experience." 2) "I want to run a precise version and need behavior which has been removed in newer releases.
Only the latter has really been a case where they have *had* to use a stable branch of bifrost, since bifrost has long supported specific branch/tag overrides for what to install from source. The same capability has often allowed those with the fromer desire to tune exactly what they want/desire if they know they need that aspect.
Kayobe consumes the bifrost stable branches. We often get bitten by changes to bifrost (and its deps) in master, and the stable branches shield us from this while allowing for bug fixes.
Secondly, while the version of bifrost & its dependencies isn't tied to those of the cloud infrastructure, it does simplify things somewhat to be able to say everything is running code from series X.
We don't use the bugfix branches.
Mark
-Julia
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:13 AM Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur@redhat.com
wrote:
Hi team!
Some time ago we introduced bugfix/X.Y branches [1] to some of the
Ironic projects. This has worked pretty well and has been very helpful in ironic/inspector/IPA, but I have second thoughts about Bifrost.
First, maintaining Bifrost branches is tedious enough because of how
many distros we support and how quickly they change.
Second, our recommended approach to using Bifrost is to git-clone
master and work from it. I'm honestly unsure if the regular stable branches are used (outside of the Kolla CI), let alone bugfix branches. (I also doubt that Bifrost releases are very popular or even meaningful, but that's another topic.)
As one of few people who is maintaining bugfix branches, I suggest we
stop making them for Bifrost and switch Bifrost back to normal cycle-with-intermediaries. We can keep releasing 3x per cycle, just to have checkpoints, but only create "normal" stable branches.
Thoughts?
Dmitry
[1]
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/approved/new-releas...
-- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs,
Michael O'Neill
participants (5)
-
Dmitry Tantsur
-
Iury Gregory
-
Julia Kreger
-
Mark Goddard
-
Riccardo Pittau