Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: LTS and stable release scheme

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: LTS and stable release scheme"):
>   What I consider more of an issue is the tedious (because purely
> mechanical) task of committing the patches to the respective stable
> trees, which (in my way of doing it) implies test builds for every
> commit. This is time I consider worthwhile spent as long as it
> doesn't grow too much, but of course this time could be used for
> less boring and more productive things.

I do test builds of my stable backports but only to the `oldest' tree.
I also find that the admin effort of backporting etc. is tedious.

> Perhaps there's room for further automation here, yet as with
> any automation the question is how quickly getting this in place
> will amortize itself.

Even with the current situation I think much more automation would be
good.  (But then I'm someone who really (a) likes automating things
(b) likes sitting back and watching the automation do its thing and
even (c) likes debugging the automation when it goes wrong.)

I think that maybe as a starting point, Jan and I could agree that
instead of build-testing our backports locally, we will throw them at
osstest and see what sticks.


As for release administrivia and tarball prep: gwd's work on the
release tarball target means that we are now close to the point where
I might think about turning some of the release checklist into a
script - at least, one that can be used for tagging and tarballing a
release on a stable branch.  (Full releases involve a lot more faff
and are different each time...)


Ian.

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