launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

["Francis J. Lacoste" <francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On August 7, 2009, Guilherme Salgado wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:17 +0700, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Danilo Šegan<danilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > У пет, 07. 08 2009. у 11:04 +0700, Stuart Bishop пише:
> > >> There are not 40 other revisions. A theoretical 0.14.1 -> 0.15 is not
> > >> that big a leap.
> > >
> > > I must admit to not being completely comfortable with buildout setup
> > > for core pieces like Storm, and I may have misunderstood all the
> > > version names we use there.
> > >
> > > 2.2.7 branch versions.cfg mentions:
> > >
> > >  storm = 0.14salgado-storm-launchpad-288-308
> >
> > On launchpad/devel:
> >
> > storm = 0.14trunk-321
> >
> > > I assumed that was storm 0.14 (rev 283 if I remember correctly) +
> > > revisions 288 and 308.  Storm trunk is already at revision 324.  That's
> > > 39 revisions we haven't seen yet in all parts of Launchpad.
> > >
> > > If I am mistaken, and 288-308 actually means all revisions between 288
> > > and 308, including them, then it's only 19 revisions of changes to
> > > Storm.  Much better, but still not perfect.
> >
> > I don't know exactly what is in that branch - Salgado landed that one.
>
> That branch had 0.14 plus revs 288 and 308; just that.
>
> After some time we noticed the bug that r308 was supposed to fix was
> not, so I submitted r319 to storm's trunk and we then cherry picked it
> into production.

We need a proper packaging of that fix, and a cherry pick request to use it in 
production.

>
> > >> I thought now was the perfect time to upgrade because we have two
> > >> entire cycles on edge.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, it would have been.  But there are two more important things
> > > we are doing right now:
> > >
> > >  * we are aiming for a major milestone 3.0, and we do want it well
> > > tested with all the production parameters around them
> >
> > Sure. So lets test it with 0.15 rather than some fork we have
> > assembled ourselves. Lots of new UI code means lots of new database
> > stuff too as lists get sorted differently, new reports are created,
> > whole new searches implemented. Should all that new code be targeted
> > at the Storm branch with the most bug fixes, or the branch that
> > happens to have the bug fixes that have bitten us in the past?
>
> I kind of agree with Stuart, but what concerns me are the scripts that
> we only run on production -- these are not going to be tested against
> 0.15 until we roll 3.0 out.
>

Isn't there a way to test them before? Testing should be available on staging, 
no?

-- 
Francis J. Lacoste
francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.