Open Stack

As I understand your proposal, we need to split our HCF milestone into two
check points: Branching Point and HCF itself.

Branching point should happen somewhere in between SCF and HCF. And though
It may coincide with HCF, it needs its own list of requirements. This will
give us the possibility to untie two events and make a separate decision on
branching without enforcing all HCF criteria.

>From the DevOps point of view it changes almost nothing, it just adds a bit
more discussion items on the management side and slight modifications to
our checklists.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodaenko at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> TL;DR: Yes, our work on 6.0 features is currently blocked and it is
> becoming a major problem. No, I don't think we should create
> pre-release or feature branches. Instead, we should create stable/5.1
> branches and open master for 6.0 work.
>
> We have reached a point in 5.1 release cycle where the scope of issues
> we are willing to address in this release is narrow enough to not
> require full attention of the whole team. We have engineers working on
> 6.0 features, and their work is essentially blocked until they have
> somewhere to commit their changes.
>
> Simply creating new branches is not even close to solving this
> problem: we have a whole CI infrastructure around every active release
> series (currently 5.1, 5.0, 4.1), including test jobs for gerrit
> commits, package repository mirrors updates, ISO image builds, smoke,
> build verification, and swarm tests for ISO images, documentation
> builds, etc. A branch without all that infrastructure isn't any better
> than current status quo: every developer tracking their own 6.0 work
> locally.
>
> Unrelated to all that, we also had a lot of very negative experience
> with feature branches in the past [0] [1], which is why we have
> decided to follow the OpenStack branching strategy: commit all feature
> changes directly to master and track bugfixes for stable releases in
> stable/* branches.
>
> [0] https://lists.launchpad.net/fuel-dev/msg00127.html
> [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/fuel-dev/msg00028.html
>
> I'm also against declaring a "hard code freeze with exceptions", HCF
> should remain tied to our ability to declare a release candidate. If
> we can't release with the bugs we already know about, declaring HCF
> before fixing these bugs would be an empty gesture.
>
> Creating stable/5.1 now instead of waiting for hard code freeze for
> 5.1 will cost us two things:
>
> 1) DevOps team will have to update our CI infrastructure for one more
> release series. It's something we have to do for 6.0 sooner or later,
> so this may be a disruption, but not an additional effort.
>
> 2) All commits targeted for 5.1 will have to be proposed for two
> branches (master and stable/5.1) instead of just one (master). This
> will require additional effort, but I think that it is significantly
> smaller than the cost of spinning our wheels on 6.0 efforts.
>
> -DmitryB
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Dmitry Mescheryakov
> <dmescheryakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
> > Hello Fuelers,
> >
> > Right now we have the following policy in place: the branches for a
> > release are opened only after its 'parent' release have reached hard
> > code freeze (HCF). Say, 5.1 release is parent releases for 5.1.1 and
> > 6.0.
> >
> > And that is the problem: if parent release is delayed, we can't
> > properly start development of a child release because we don't have
> > branches to commit. That is current issue with 6.0: we already started
> > to work on pushing Juno in to 6.0, but if we are to make changes to
> > our deployment code we have nowhere to store them.
> >
> > IMHO the issue could easily be resolved by creation of pre-release
> > branches, which are merged together with parent branches once the
> > parent reaches HCF. Say, we use branch 'pre-6.0' for initial
> > development of 6.0. Once 5.1 reaches HCF, we merge pre-6.0 into master
> > and continue development here. After that pre-6.0 is abandoned.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dmitry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Dmitry Borodaenko
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Aleksandra Fedorova
bookwar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140909/ec23b4ff/attachment.html>