Open Stack

On 02/06/13 11:40, Lorin Hochstein wrote:
> I've noticed that there have been several bugs in the grizzly branch
> that were fixed in the master but hadn't been backported to
> stable/grizzly. I'd like to propose the following automated approach to
> ensure backports happen more regularly:
>
> Any patch to the master branch must specify in the commit message
> whether the patch should be backported. For example:
>
> backport: stable/grizzly
>
> or
>
> backport: none
>
> or
>
> backport: stable/grizzly stable/folsom
>
>
> If this line is missing from the commit log, then a gating job will
> fail, and jenkins will link to the error message (e.g., "Missing
> 'backport: ' line. Please specify "backport: stable/grizzly" if this
> should be backported to grizzly or "backport: none" if this shouldn't be
> backported).
>
> When the patch is merged into trunk, then jenkins automatically does a
> cherry-pick and merge proposal against the branches specified in the
> backport line.
>
>
> What do you folks think?


The automation sounds like an excellent idea. As it is, I'm a terrible 
offender of not backporting, so I would be very happy to have an easier 
way to do so.

Regarding having a "default fail" scenario, I believe this should be a 
second step. The first step should be education of people so they put it 
in and think about what it means, rather than just putting in something 
to make the error go away - or worse, getting scared off and abandoning 
the patch :)

Once we've got some basis of contributors doing things the right way, 
then it should be easy enough to enable "default fail" :)

Thoughts?


Regards,


Tom