Re: [Xen-devel] [URGENT RFC] Branching and reopening -unstable

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Wei Liu wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> RC1 is going to be tagged this week (maybe today). We need to figure
> out when to branch / reopen -unstable for committing and what rules
> should be applied until 4.6 is out of the door.
> 
> Ian, Ian and I had a conversation IRL. We discussed several things,
> but figured it is necessary to have more people involved before making
> any decision.
> 
> Here is my recollection of the conversation.
> 
> Branching should be done at one of the RC tags. It might not be enough
> time for us to reach consensus before tagging RC1, so I would say lets
> branch at RC2 if we don't observe blocker bugs.
> 
> Maintainers should be responsible for both 4.6 branch and -unstable
> branch.
> 
> As for bug fixes, here are two options.
> 
> Option 1: bug fixes go into -unstable, backport / cherry-pick bug
> fixes back to 4.6. This seems to leave the tree in half frozen status
> because we need to reject refactoring patches in case they cause
> backporting failure.
> 
> Option 2: bug fixes go into 4.6, merge them to -unstable. If merge has
> conflict and maintainers can't deal with that, the authors of those
> changes in -unstable which cause conflict is responsible for fixing up
> the conflict.
> 
> Ian and Ian, anything I miss? Anything to add?
> 
> Others, thoughts?

I don't see why Option 1 should be different from Option 2 in terms of
dealing with conflicts. I think that in both cases we should just ask
contributors for help to fix the conflict.

So I would go for a revised Option 1:

Option 1b: bug fixes go into -unstable, backport / cherry-pick bug fixes
back to 4.6. If merge has conflict and maintainers can't deal with that,
the authors of those changes in -unstable which cause conflict is
responsible for fixing up the conflict.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel