[wildfly-dev] WildFly Core component upgrade coordination
David M. Lloyd
david.lloyd at redhat.com
Thu Oct 9 10:23:17 EDT 2014
On 10/09/2014 08:25 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> On 10/9/14, 7:55 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> Could we make an agreement that all PRs submitted by say Thursday
>> afternoon that are ready to be merged are merged before the tag is created.
>>
>
> Given the "ready to be merged" bit, sure, fine with me.
>
> I'm not willing to commit to people to get things reviewed and tested on
> a weekly deadline, but if things are already reviewed and tested I have
> no problem promising to merge them.
>
> I'm just one of the players here, unless I'm nominated as the person who
> does the weekly release, in which case my promise matters more. But I
> volunteer to do the release if Jason wants that.
I agree 100% and I also volunteer to be on the weekly release roster
(more people means less likely to miss a release).
>> Not saying that Friday's PRs can't be merged just trying to engineers
>> some predictability when they are working on issues that affect both repos.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>
>>
>> On 08/10/14 21:26, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>> I think the best way to deal with this is just a time boxed release, say
>>> every Friday afternoon. That way there is no surprises, and if a PR is
>>> not ready then it can go into next weeks release.
>>>
>>> I don't think automation is a good idea, there are to many things that
>>> can go wrong.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>> I'll take whatever I can get. :-)
>>>>
>>>> On 10/08/2014 10:00 AM, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
>>>>> that still doesnt solve the problem on "when" next release is.
>>>>>
>>>>> as people that need to do work across both repos need to know this info.
>>>>> Current state is just too unknown and annoyng if you need to do
>>>>> something in core and then also in full to make it work.
>>>>> not to even add to the mix that your PR *needs* to break something in
>>>>> full, at least until your PR for full is also merged.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:57 PM, David M. Lloyd<david.lloyd at redhat.com
>>>>> <mailto:david.lloyd at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just telling people "hey I'm releasing core in a day or two" is already
>>>>> 10x better than the current status quo.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/08/2014 07:40 AM, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>>> > I think I prefer the 'human interaction' one best. What if the automatic one does the release, just as someone is attempting to merge a bunch of PRs which should be in the release? Although that might be a corner case :-P
>>>>> > On 8 Oct 2014, at 13:24, Tomaž Cerar<tomaz.cerar at gmail.com<mailto:tomaz.cerar at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I had some discussions with Jason on how we could automate
>>>>> >> time boxed releases by just having a button in CI that would perform it.
>>>>> >> So we at least have a bit of human interaction.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> We could also have it done automatically by CI every week on schedule that shouldn't be a big deal to do.
>>>>> >> If we do that we should have "indexed" build versions like 1.0.0.Beta1-01, 1.0.0.Beta1-02 etc...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> tomaz
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Darran Lofthouse<darran.lofthouse at jboss.com<mailto:darran.lofthouse at jboss.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >> I don't know if it needs to be a short timebox say weekly or better if
>>>>> >> on-demand e.g. if an engineer is working on an issue in both core and
>>>>> >> wildfly they request a core release and upgrade to continue their work.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> At the same time I think we do need the Jiras as David suggests to track
>>>>> >> what we actually needs, unfortunately this does create some additional
>>>>> >> maintenance as these need updating after each release.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 08/10/14 07:21, Heiko Braun wrote:
>>>>> >>> Does it help to put Core on a time boxed schedule?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On 07 Oct 2014, at 22:07, Stuart Douglas<stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com<mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
>>>>> >>> <mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com<mailto:stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> I don't really think that we need this level of process around a Wildfly
>>>>> >>>> Core release. I think that we should just be doing these releases fairly
>>>>> >>>> frequently, and if some work misses the release then there is always
>>>>> >>>> another release coming up in the near future.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> >>>wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> >>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> >>wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> >>wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> >wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - DML
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>
>
--
- DML
More information about the wildfly-dev
mailing list