openstack team mailing list archive

[Eric Day <eday@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The extra branches are just an implementation detail, we can have
them or not. It's really a matter of if it's possible and/or easier
to have jenkins fire off new jobs with arbitrary branches that need
to be merged with trunk for each job vs merging and pushing to a
staging branch and have the jobs test that. Either way, we get the
same result. We will also have the flexibility to test arbitrary
branches before proposing either way. These extra "trunks" will not
need to be managed, as tarmac/jenkins will control them.

-Eric

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:24:11PM -0600, Trey Morris wrote:
>    I'm curious what the point of having a line of trunks for a commit to
>    bounce down on its way to trunk would gain us other than having to manage
>    a line of trunks. What's wrong with status quo branch management (other
>    than tests)? What's wrong with having the commit sit in its LP topic
>    branch, which is every bit as publicly accessible as any branch in the
>    line of trunks would be? The test system (or anyone who wants to play with
>    it) can just grab trunk merge the topic branch and run however many levels
>    or types of tests we deem appropriate. Success = trunk. Fail = test fail
>    status in the test report.
> 
>    On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>      On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Mark Washenberger
>      <mark.washenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>      >> This is what we're working on, and what Justin is proposing, Mark.
>      >>
>      >> Basically, in Drizzle-land, people propose a merge into trunk, Hudson
>      >> picks up that proposal, pulls the brnach into lp:drizzle/staging,
>      >> builds Drizzle on all supported platforms (>12 OS/distro combos),
>      then
>      >> runs all automated regression testing against the proposed branch
>      (can
>      >> take 3 or more hours).
>      >>
>      >> We're proposing the same kind of automation for OpenStack.
>      >
>      > Sorry, I misunderstood what Justin was proposing. This sounds good to
>      me.
>      >
>      > We could also do this without a staging branch by having the automated
>      system check out trunk and merge the proposed branch locally.
> 
>      Sure, this is, of course, quite possible, too :)
> 
>      One thing that a staging-first branch allows, though, is to set up an
>      environment where some *very* minor or style-only type commits can be
>      fed into trunk directly without having to got through the full testing
>      loop...
>      -jay
>      _______________________________________________
>      Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>      Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>      More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp