Open Stack

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Lorin Hochstein <lorin at nimbisservices.com>wrote:

> All:
>
> 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).
>
>
This sounds like a good mechanism, and I love automation. For how many more
weeks / months will the automation work without any merging intervention
needed manually? I haven't had too much trouble but imagine as more patches
get backported it'll get worse? What do you think?

Anne


> 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?
>
>
> Lorin
>
> --
> Lorin Hochstein
> Lead Architect - Cloud Services
> Nimbis Services, Inc.
> www.nimbisservices.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-docs mailing list
> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
>


-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20130602/ff63a2e1/attachment.html>