Re: branches! infernalis vs master, RIP next

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 29/09/2015 23:12, Sage Weil wrote:
> Having master and infernalis branches follow each other is preventing some 
> folks from moving forward with post-infernalis work.  And it's confusing.  
> So, we're proposing a new world order... and this time it should keep 
> things consistent both during regular development and stabilization 
> periods:
> 
>  master - where new feature work is merged
>  infernalis ($next_stable) - where bug fixes are merged
>  hammer, firefly ($previous_stable) - where bug fixes are merged
> 
> Previously we had a 'next' branch that was whatever the next pending 
> release would be.  This will henceforth be named after the next major 
> release (currently infernalis).  This let's us avoid having next sometimes 
> during regular development periods and not during stabilization periods.  
> It also means that we needn't know ahead of time whether the next release 
> is going to be a development release, rc, or the initial (x.2.0) release 
> of the next stable series.
> 
> That $next_stable branch (currently infernalis) will periodically get 
> merged back into master, just like next did.  We will stop doing that when 
> the release is made.  From that point forward, any stable series backports 
> will be cherry-picked.
> 
> The only real difference then between the development and stabilization 
> periods is that during development we pull in new stuff from master each 
> time we release, and releases are x.0.z.  During stabilization, we do rc 
> releases that look like x.1.z, and we don't merge in anything new from 
> master.
> 
> So:
> 
>  1- Target any pull request with a bug fix that should go into infernalis 
> at the infernalis branch.
> 
>  2- Before merging anything, make sure it is targetting the right branch.  
> If it isn't, merge it manually, and verify it isn't pulling in a bunch of 
> extra stuff (e.g., because a bug fix for infernalis was based on the 
> current master branch).
> 
>  3- We will periodically merge infernalis back into master until the first 
> infernalis (9.2.0) release.  After that we'll cherry-pick -x.
> 
>  4- At that point we'll create a jewel branch that will work the same way.  
> (It will be regularly merged into master, will eventually result in 10.0.z 
> releases, and will pull lumps of new stuff from master in each time that 
> happens.)

When 10.0.0 is released, the jewel branch is reset to master and will eventually be 10.0.1 etc. Is that right ?

> 
> Sound okay?
> sage
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux