Open Stack

I’m also a fan of squashed patches when the first introduces a second bug.

Vish

On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:

> Signed PGP part
> On 07/08/14 14:19, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/7/2014 2:54 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> Brant Knudson wrote:
> >>> There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether a patch
> >>> series should be squashed or not when it's backported to the
> >>> stable branch. What's everyone's opinion on this? Whatever the
> >>> result is we should update
> >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StableBranch#Proposing_Fixes .
> >>>
> >>> This might affect some of us more than others because I like to
> >>> split my bug fixes into first a patch that shows the bug and
> >>> then a patch that fixes it, so I've generally always got 2
> >>> patches to backport.
> >>>
> >>> As someone that works on a project that involves backporting
> >>> changes to branches that have been abandoned by community it's
> >>> probably easier to backport a squashed patch. And the note for
> >>> the OSSA is going to have fewer reviews and be less confusing
> >>> to the non-initiated if there's only 1 commit.
> >>
> >> Keeping them separate usually makes it easier to compare with the
> >> master patch. One trick with stable branch reviews is that we
> >> don't judge the quality of the original patch (this is what the
> >> master review by core reviewers is for). We vouch that the same
> >> patch has landed in the master branch, and that it is acceptable
> >> for the stable branch.
> >>
> >> IMHO the first part of the task (comparing stable patches with
> >> master patches) is facilitated by proposing similarly-organized
> >> series... and since the stable review is simpler than the master
> >> review, the number of patches is not that much of an issue ?
> >>
> >
> > The only time I've squashed a series in a backport is when two or
> > more patches really need to land together because one patch fixes
> > part of a bug but might introduce another bug, which is fixed by
> > another later change.  We had a series of 4 changes to a
> > nova/neutron interaction that I backported to stable/icehouse
> > awhile back and rather than just make sure they all got merged at
> > the same time, I squashed them and kept the original commit
> > messages from each patch in the single commit.
> >
> > It does make it harder on the backport reviewer but it avoids
> > merging something half-assed.
> >
> 
> This is a valid case to squash. Other valid option is when gate was
> broken by some external changes that require gate to be run against
> multiple patches at once to pass it.
> 
> Other than that, I expect backport patches to be identical to what is
> in master [obviously, adding conflict resolution and adoption whenever
> needed]. If anything, this facilitates patch comparison. It also makes
> granular reverts easier, in case such need arises in the future.
> 
> /Ihar
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openstack-stable-maint mailing list
> Openstack-stable-maint at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-stable-maint

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-stable-maint/attachments/20140807/ebcf6fe1/attachment.pgp>