You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com> on 2014/07/31 06:22:21 UTC

[Summary] checkin process

For the git flow:
1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
2. This is the proposal for first cut
2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
3c. do the release
3d. merge to develop
3e. merge to master and update tags
3f. delete hot fix branch
4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514

using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors

In addition:
1. Every commit should have unit tests
2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
 (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
Please add/amend if I missed anything.

Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?


~Rajani

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:39 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
> comment again:
> 
> We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
> days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
> work for getting all features from master into master will be much
> greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
> and start this work flow from 4.5+
> 
> As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
> part not requirements to a work flow.
> 
> In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.

Has a proposal made it to the wiki ? 
We need one clear proposal with couple backers to bring this forward to a vote ?
Daan, Rajani and Leo, maybe you can edit the wiki ?


> 
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
> <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> For the git flow:
>> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
>> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
>> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
>> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
>> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
>> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
>> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
>> 3c. do the release
>> 3d. merge to develop
>> 3e. merge to master and update tags
>> 3f. delete hot fix branch
>> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
>> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>> 
>> using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>> 
>> In addition:
>> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
>> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
>> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
>> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
>> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
>> (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
>> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>> 
>> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>> 
>> 
>> ~Rajani
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Rajani,

On 31-Jul-2014, at 11:55 am, Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:

> ahh… we have the same content twice on the wiki. I deleted the duplicate and edited it as per the comment from daan.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess
>
> +1 for starting a vote thread

Thanks for fixing it, I think anyone can start the first voting thread. I think we’ll have iterations and we’ll know community’s take on the proposal.

So, please go ahead and start a voting/discussion thread since you’re the one who kickstarted the discussion around the git workflow initially.

Regards.

>
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 31-Jul-2014, at 3:04 pm, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please use this section on the wiki to propose/fix/modify the new proposed check-in process:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess
>
> My feedback:
>
> - I don’t want to enforce/adopt the gitflow model "as-is", like not rename master branch
>
> - the aim IMO is to make master stable for people to work with, so we don’t break it often
> - we do feature/bug-fix/any-work in our own branch and merge/cherry-pick/what-have-you when it has tests and it is stable (lazy definition as per committer’s discretion)
>
> - the git commit cherry-picking/merging should be from firm/stable branches to unstable i.e. from release branches (such as 4.x) to master or developer’s own branch; the reverse is done only when the work/commits/check-ins are tested/firm/stable
>
> We’ve so many threads with so many emails that we’re sort of causing split-brain issue for ourselves on this issue.
>
> I’m not sure which one to follow now -- the length of a discussion thread is inversely proportional to the interest of community members on the thread.
>
> Let’s start a new vote thread and drop discussion on other threads?
>
> On 31-Jul-2014, at 11:17 am, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4
> point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases
> 2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’
> 2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
> 2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
>
> Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal?
>
> Anyone really :)
>
> Someone mentioned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git
>
> You could add a section on 'gitflow' and basically dump your bullet list.
>
> Then we can edit it and call a vote .
>
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
> comment again:
>
> We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
> days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
> work for getting all features from master into master will be much
> greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
> and start this work flow from 4.5+
>
> As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
> part not requirements to a work flow.
>
> In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
> <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> For the git flow:
> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
> 3c. do the release
> 3d. merge to develop
> 3e. merge to master and update tags
> 3f. delete hot fix branch
> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>
> using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>
> In addition:
> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
> (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>
> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> M. +41 779015219 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
>
>
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>

Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +41 779015219 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab




Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.
ahh… we have the same content twice on the wiki. I deleted the duplicate and edited it as per the comment from daan.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess

+1 for starting a vote thread



~Rajani



On 31-Jul-2014, at 3:04 pm, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:

Hi,

Please use this section on the wiki to propose/fix/modify the new proposed check-in process:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess

My feedback:

- I don’t want to enforce/adopt the gitflow model "as-is", like not rename master branch

- the aim IMO is to make master stable for people to work with, so we don’t break it often
- we do feature/bug-fix/any-work in our own branch and merge/cherry-pick/what-have-you when it has tests and it is stable (lazy definition as per committer’s discretion)

- the git commit cherry-picking/merging should be from firm/stable branches to unstable i.e. from release branches (such as 4.x) to master or developer’s own branch; the reverse is done only when the work/commits/check-ins are tested/firm/stable

We’ve so many threads with so many emails that we’re sort of causing split-brain issue for ourselves on this issue.

I’m not sure which one to follow now -- the length of a discussion thread is inversely proportional to the interest of community members on the thread.

Let’s start a new vote thread and drop discussion on other threads?

On 31-Jul-2014, at 11:17 am, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:

to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4
point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases
2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’
2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.

Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal?

Anyone really :)

Someone mentioned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git

You could add a section on 'gitflow' and basically dump your bullet list.

Then we can edit it and call a vote .



~Rajani



On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:

I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
comment again:

We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
work for getting all features from master into master will be much
greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
and start this work flow from 4.5+

As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
part not requirements to a work flow.

In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
For the git flow:
1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
2. This is the proposal for first cut
2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
3c. do the release
3d. merge to develop
3e. merge to master and update tags
3f. delete hot fix branch
4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514

using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors

In addition:
1. Every commit should have unit tests
2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
(This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
Please add/amend if I missed anything.

Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?


~Rajani






--
Daan



Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +41 779015219 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab




Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi,

Please use this section on the wiki to propose/fix/modify the new proposed check-in process:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess

My feedback:

- I don’t want to enforce/adopt the gitflow model "as-is", like not rename master branch

- the aim IMO is to make master stable for people to work with, so we don’t break it often
- we do feature/bug-fix/any-work in our own branch and merge/cherry-pick/what-have-you when it has tests and it is stable (lazy definition as per committer’s discretion)

- the git commit cherry-picking/merging should be from firm/stable branches to unstable i.e. from release branches (such as 4.x) to master or developer’s own branch; the reverse is done only when the work/commits/check-ins are tested/firm/stable

We’ve so many threads with so many emails that we’re sort of causing split-brain issue for ourselves on this issue.

I’m not sure which one to follow now -- the length of a discussion thread is inversely proportional to the interest of community members on the thread.

Let’s start a new vote thread and drop discussion on other threads?

On 31-Jul-2014, at 11:17 am, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4
>> point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases
>>>> 2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’
>>>> 2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>>>> 2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
>>
>> Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal?
>
> Anyone really :)
>
> Someone mentioned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git
>
> You could add a section on 'gitflow' and basically dump your bullet list.
>
> Then we can edit it and call a vote .
>
>
>>
>> ~Rajani
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
>>> comment again:
>>>
>>> We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
>>> days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
>>> work for getting all features from master into master will be much
>>> greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
>>> and start this work flow from 4.5+
>>>
>>> As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
>>> part not requirements to a work flow.
>>>
>>> In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
>>> <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> For the git flow:
>>>> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>>>> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
>>>> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
>>>> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
>>>> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>>>> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
>>>> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
>>>> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
>>>> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
>>>> 3c. do the release
>>>> 3d. merge to develop
>>>> 3e. merge to master and update tags
>>>> 3f. delete hot fix branch
>>>> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
>>>> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>>>>
>>>> using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>>>>
>>>> In addition:
>>>> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
>>>> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
>>>> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
>>>> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
>>>> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
>>>> (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
>>>> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>>>>
>>>> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~Rajani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>
>

Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +41 779015219 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab




Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.
I updated the wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-Gitflow


~Rajani



On 31-Jul-2014, at 2:47 pm, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>> wrote:

to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4
point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases
2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’
2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.

Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal?

Anyone really :)

Someone mentioned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git

You could add a section on 'gitflow' and basically dump your bullet list.

Then we can edit it and call a vote .



~Rajani



On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
comment again:

We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
work for getting all features from master into master will be much
greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
and start this work flow from 4.5+

As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
part not requirements to a work flow.

In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Ra...@citrix.com>> wrote:
For the git flow:
1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
2. This is the proposal for first cut
2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
3c. do the release
3d. merge to develop
3e. merge to master and update tags
3f. delete hot fix branch
4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514

using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors

In addition:
1. Every commit should have unit tests
2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
(This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
Please add/amend if I missed anything.

Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?


~Rajani






--
Daan

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:

> to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4
> point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases
>>> 2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’
>>> 2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>>> 2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
> 
> Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal? 

Anyone really :)

Someone mentioned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git

You could add a section on 'gitflow' and basically dump your bullet list.

Then we can edit it and call a vote .


> 
> ~Rajani
> 
> 
> 
> On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
>> comment again:
>> 
>> We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
>> days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
>> work for getting all features from master into master will be much
>> greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
>> and start this work flow from 4.5+
>> 
>> As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
>> part not requirements to a work flow.
>> 
>> In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
>> <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> For the git flow:
>>> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>>> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
>>> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
>>> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
>>> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>>> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
>>> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
>>> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
>>> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
>>> 3c. do the release
>>> 3d. merge to develop
>>> 3e. merge to master and update tags
>>> 3f. delete hot fix branch
>>> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
>>> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>>> 
>>> using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>>> 
>>> In addition:
>>> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
>>> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
>>> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
>>> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
>>> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
>>> (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
>>> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>>> 
>>> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ~Rajani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Daan
>

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.
to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4
point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases
>> 2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’
>> 2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>> 2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.

Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal? 

~Rajani



On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
> comment again:
> 
> We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
> days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
> work for getting all features from master into master will be much
> greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
> and start this work flow from 4.5+
> 
> As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
> part not requirements to a work flow.
> 
> In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
> <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> For the git flow:
>> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
>> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
>> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
>> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
>> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
>> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
>> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
>> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
>> 3c. do the release
>> 3d. merge to develop
>> 3e. merge to master and update tags
>> 3f. delete hot fix branch
>> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
>> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>> 
>> using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>> 
>> In addition:
>> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
>> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
>> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
>> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
>> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
>> (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
>> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>> 
>> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>> 
>> 
>> ~Rajani
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my
comment again:

We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two
days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the
work for getting all features from master into master will be much
greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional
and start this work flow from 4.5+

As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my
part not requirements to a work flow.

In general I am +1 on putting this to vote.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> For the git flow:
> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0
> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
> 3c. do the release
> 3d. merge to develop
> 3e. merge to master and update tags
> 3f. delete hot fix branch
> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support
> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>
> using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>
> In addition:
> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests
> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately
> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>)
>  (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?)
> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>
> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
>
>



-- 
Daan

Re: [Summary] checkin process

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Rajani, we can't cut a new master from 4.4
Leo's work on comparing the branches showed us that. So the new flow will
be limited To master land 4.5+

biligual spelling checker used.read at your own risk
Op 31 jul. 2014 06:22 schreef "Rajani Karuturi" <Rajani.Karuturi@citrix.com
>:

> For the git flow:
> 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> 2. This is the proposal for first cut
> 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’
> 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0
> 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop
> 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done.
> 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix
> 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be
> release/4.4.0
> 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1
> 3c. do the release
> 3d. merge to develop
> 3e. merge to master and update tags
> 3f. delete hot fix branch
> 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using
> git-flow support
> 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514
>
> using the git-flow git extension available at
> https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors
>
> In addition:
> 1. Every commit should have unit tests
> 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration
> tests
> 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues
> 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed
> immediately
> 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a
> checkin (
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator
> >)
>  (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and
> report integration failures if any?)
> Please add/amend if I missed anything.
>
> Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay?
>
>
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
>