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

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

Hi Wei,

Thanks for CCing me, for me, I prefer option 2, it won't affect the normal
development release cycle, if the contributor wants to contribute to
-unstable, then it is his responsibility to resolve the confilicts on the
main branch. but I think it depends on the maintainers who will make the

On 08/11/2015 08:31 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
CCing Hongyang, I missed him when I copy-n-paste emails from MAINTAINERS.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:44:07AM +0100, 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

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?



Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.