Open Stack

Mike,

from DevOps point of view it doesn't really matter when we do
branching. This is the process we need to perform anyway and this
partial branching doesn't change too much for us.
Although there might be several technical questions like:

 1) When we create /6.1 mirror?
 2) Should we create fuel-main repo branch before others or should we
pass config.mk variables from Jenkins side?

But it can be done one way or the other.

The primary concern here is not the build process and its
implementation, but the question how we are going to test the "early"
patches.

Right now we have unit tests and general nightly tests which are
analyzed and managed by QA team. The fact that we can create set of
6.1 system test jobs earlier in the process and even run them daily
doesn't mean that there will be people to watch them and analyze their
results. If we do early 6.1-branching while QA team is focused on 6.0
release, who will be dealing with this additional workload?

And if those 6.1 nightly system tests aren't checked properly, we get
code merged to fuel-web for several weeks based on unit-tests only,
which is generally a bad idea. Especially with current state of
fuel-web repository with several projects in one.


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko
<dborodaenko at mirantis.com> wrote:
> 1. We discussed splitting fuel-web, I think we should do that before
> relaxing code freeze rules for it.
>
> 2. If there are high or critical priority bugs in a component during soft
> code freeze, all developers of that component should be writing, reviewing,
> or testing fixes for these bugs.
>
> 3. If we do separate code freeze for current components, we should always
> start with fuel-main, so that we can switch repos from master to stable one
> at a time.
>
> On Nov 17, 2014 4:08 AM, "Mike Scherbakov" <mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that we need to do this, and agree with Vitaly.
>>
>> Basically, when we are getting low amount of review requests, it's easy
>> enough to do backports to stable branch. So criteria should be based on
>> this, and I believe it can be even more soft, than what Vitaly suggests.
>>
>> I suggest the following:
>> ___
>> If no more than 3 new High / Critical priority bugs appeared in the passed
>> day, and no more than 10 High/Critical over the past 3 days appeared - then
>> stable branch can be created. ___
>>
>> HCF criteria remain the same. We will just have stable branch earlier. It
>> might be a bit of headache for our DevOps team: it means that
>>
>> 6.1 ISO should appear immediately after first stable branch created (we
>> need ISO and all set of tests working on master)
>> 6.0 ISO has to be build on master branches from some repos, but stable/6.0
>> from other. Likely it means whether switching to stable/6.0 in fuel-main and
>> hacking config.mk, or something else.
>>
>> DevOps team, what do you think?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh
>> <vkramskikh at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a proposal to consider a repo as stable if there are no
>>> high/critical bugs and there were no such new bugs with this priority for
>>> the last 3 days. I'm ok with it.
>>>
>>> 2014-11-14 17:16 GMT+03:00 Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> The idea of separate unfreezing is cool itself, but we have to define
>>>> some rules how to define that fuel-web is stable. I mean, in fuel-web
>>>> we have different projects, so when Fuel UI is stable, the
>>>> fuel_upgrade or Nailgun may be not.
>>>>
>>>> - Igor
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh
>>>> <vkramskikh at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>> > Evgeniy,
>>>> >
>>>> > That means that the stable branch can be created for some repos
>>>> > earlier. For
>>>> > example, fuel-web repo seems not to have critical issues for now and
>>>> > I'd
>>>> > like master branch of that repo to be opened for merging various stuff
>>>> > which
>>>> > shouldn't go to 6.0 and do not wait until all other repos stabilize.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2014-11-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >> There was an idea to make a separate code freeze for repos
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Could you please clarify what do you mean?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think we should have a way to merge patches for the next
>>>> >> release event if it's code freeze for the current.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Vitaly Kramskikh
>>>> >> <vkramskikh at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Folks,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There was an idea to make a separate code freeze for repos, but we
>>>> >>> decided not to do it. Do we plan to try it this time? It is really
>>>> >>> painful
>>>> >>> to maintain multi-level tree of dependent review requests and wait
>>>> >>> for a few
>>>> >>> weeks until we can merge new stuff in master.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Vitaly Kramskikh,
>>>> >>> Software Engineer,
>>>> >>> Mirantis, Inc.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> >>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Vitaly Kramskikh,
>>>> > Software Engineer,
>>>> > Mirantis, Inc.
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vitaly Kramskikh,
>>> Software Engineer,
>>> Mirantis, Inc.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Scherbakov
>> #mihgen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Aleksandra Fedorova
Fuel Devops Engineer
bookwar