Re: Idea: Alternate Release process

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

 



I couldn't find any solution for the backward incompatible changes. As you mentioned this model will not work for LTS.

How about adopting this only for non LTS releases? We will not have backward incompatibility problem since we need not release minor updates to non LTS releases.

regards
Aravinda
On 05/05/2016 04:46 PM, Aravinda wrote:

regards
Aravinda

On 05/05/2016 03:54 PM, Kaushal M wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aravinda <avishwan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

Sharing an idea to manage multiple releases without maintaining
multiple release branches and backports.

This idea is heavily inspired by the Rust release model(you may feel
exactly same except the LTS part). I think Chrome/Firefox also follows
the same model.

http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html

Feature Flag:
--------------
Compile time variable to prevent compiling featurerelated code when
disabled. (For example, ./configure--disable-geo-replication
or ./configure --disable-xml etc)

Plan
-----
- Nightly build with all the features enabled(./build --nightly)

- All new patches will land in Master, if the patch belongs to a
   existing feature then it should be written behind that feature flag.

- If a feature is still work in progress then it will be only enabled in
   nightly build and not enabled in beta or stable builds.
   Once the maintainer thinks the feature is ready for testing then that
   feature will be enabled in beta build.

- Every 6 weeks, beta branch will be created by enabling all the
   features which maintainers thinks it is stable and previous beta
   branch will be promoted as stable.
   All the previous beta features will be enabled in stable unless it
   is marked as unstable during beta testing.

- LTS builds are same as stable builds but without enabling all the
   features. If we decide last stable build will become LTS release,
   then the feature list from last stable build will be saved as
   `features-release-<NUM>.yaml`, For example:
   features-release-3.9.yaml`
   Same feature list will be used while building minor releases for the
   LTS. For example, `./build --stable --features features-release-3.8.yaml`

- Three branches, nightly/master, testing/beta, stable

To summarize,
- One stable release once in 6 weeks
- One Beta release once in 6 weeks
- Nightly builds every day
- LTS release once in 6 months or 1 year, Minor releases once in 6 weeks.

Advantageous:
-------------
1. No more backports required to different release branches.(only
    exceptional backports, discussed below)
2. Non feature Bugfix will never get missed in releases.
3. Release process can be automated.
4. Bugzilla process can be simplified.

Challenges:
------------
1. Enforcing Feature flag for every patch
2. Tests also should be behind feature flag
3. New release process

Backports, Bug Fixes and Features:
----------------------------------
- Release bug fix - Patch only to Master, which will be available in
   next beta/stable build.
- Urgent bug fix - Patch to Master and Backport to beta and stable
   branch, and early release stable and beta build.
- Beta bug fix - Patch to Master and Backport to Beta branch if urgent.
- Security fix - Patch to Master, Beta and last stable branch and build
   all LTS releases.
- Features - Patch only to Master, which will be available in
   stable/beta builds once feature becomes stable.

FAQs:
-----
- Can a feature development take more than one release cycle(6 weeks)?
Yes, the feature will be enabled only in nightly build and not in
beta/stable builds. Once the feature is complete mark it as
stable so that it will be included in next beta build and stable
build.


---

Do you like the idea? Let me know what you guys think.

This reduces the number of versions that we need to maintain, which I like.
Having official test (beta) releases should help get features out to
testers hand faster,
and get quicker feedback.

One thing that's still not quite clear to is the issue of backwards
compatibility.
I'm still thinking it thorough and don't have a proper answer to this yet.
Would a new release be backwards compatible with the previous release?
Should we be maintaining compatibility with LTS releases with the
latest release?
Each LTS release will have seperate list of features to be enabled. If we make any breaking changes(which are not backward compatible) then it will affect LTS releases as you mentioned. But we should not break compatibility unless it is major version change like 4.0. I have to workout how we can handle backward incompatible changes.

With our current strategy, we at least have a long term release branch,
so we get some guarantees of compatibility with releases on the same branch.

As I understand the proposed approach, we'd be replacing a stable
branch with the beta branch.
So we don't have a long-term release branch (apart from LTS).
Stable branch is common for LTS releases also. Builds will be different using different list of features.

Below example shows stable release once in 6 weeks, and two LTS releases in 6 months gap(3.8 and 3.12)

LTS 1 : 3.8    3.8.1  3.8.2  3.8.3   3.8.4   3.8.5...
LTS 2 :                              3.12    3.12.1...
Stable: 3.8    3.9    3.10   3.11    3.12    3.13...
A user would be upgrading from one branch to another for every release.
Can we sketch out how compatibility would work in this case?
User will not upgrade from one branch to other branch, If user interested in stable channel then upgrade once in 6 weeks. (Same as minor update in current release style)

This approach work well for projects like Chromium and Firefox, single
system apps
  which generally don't need to be compatible with the previous release.
I don't understand how the Rust  project uses this (I am yet to read
the linked blog post),
as it requires some sort of backwards compatibility. But it too is a
single system app,
and doesn't have the compatibility problems we face.

Gluster is a distributed system, that can involve multiple different
versions interacting with each other.
This is something we need to think about.
I need to think about compatibility, What new problems about the compatibility with this approach compared to our existing release plan?

We could work out some sort of a solution for this though.
It might be something very obvious I'm missing right now.

~kaushal

--
regards
Aravinda

_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel


_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux