13 Dec
2012
13 Dec
'12
6:05 p.m.
On 12/13/2012 12:00 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
The release script already does that.
I mean, when starting the release it creates a local release branch, but
that branch gets discarded at the end.
Do you want to create the release branch beforehand, so that devs can
stabilize the build in that release branch? I'm against this, since it
contradicts another important principle that we're supposed to follow:
the build should always work! There is no good reason why there would be
a need for stabilization. That's why we have continuous integration.
Hi devs,
We have too many test failures on
http://ci.xwiki.org/view/Functional%20Tests/ and too many emails sent by
Jenkins on the list.
It has become a nightmare and it's impossible to perform a release anymore
with a good confidence it's going to work.
This is all the more bad that we're ending the 4.x cycle.
Thus I propose to do the following:
* Don't release 4.4M1 till all tests are passing with no more flickers
(say the tests should all pass during 10 full builds for example)
* Create a Commando unit in charge of solving the flickers. Since I've
already discussed this with Marius I propose that Marius and myself be the
first 2 members. If anyone else would like to help please reply to this
mail and join us.
* This commando unit gives itself 1 full week to solve the flickers (ie
till the 21st of December). We'll decide what to do next if we fail to
achieve our goal after that deadline.
* We start by creating a branch for 4.4M1 so that we isolate ourselves
from the rest of the devs who continue to work for 4.4RC1 (reminder: only
important bug fixes should go in 4.4RC1)
* When we have fixed all flickers on the 4.4M1 branch we merge the changes
to both master and the stable-4.3 branch
* At the end of next week we also propose a strategy so that this mess
doesn't happen again in the future
WDYT?
+1 and, as I`ve already mentioned it to Vincent, maybe this gives us the
opportunity to improve our release process/scripts to be able to release
from a "release branch" instead of blocking "master" for the whole
period
of the release.
Thanks
-Vincent
Note: We need to release 4.3.1 ASAP so this strategy above will not apply
to 4.3.1. For 4.3.1 Edy will need to figure out if all the failing tests
are real issues or test issues. I think Edy could do this by a combination
of running them locally and doing some manual tests where they also fail
locally. Edy WDYT?
Since I`ve already agreed to being RM for 4.3.1, I guess that this was
already part of the work, additional to the help from the owners of the
problematic modules on which I`m counting on :)
Thanks,
Eduard
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs