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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.10.15 at 12:59, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: LTS and stable release scheme"):
>> 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.

Well, yes, we could. Otoh the overhead of fixing something that
didn't build but got committed already means more mechanical
work (revert, or create a fixup patch) compared to fixing it before
pushing to the respective staging tree.

What I would see as possibly useful would be a queue like thing
where backports could be added, and automation would take
care of committing and pushing as much of it as it can validate
to build (more severe problems are pretty rare in stable trees,
and hence relying on the normal osstest there like we do now
would seem reasonable). Yet again this would mean one may
have to turn attention to the respective tree more often (since
right now this is needed just once for each batch of backports,
unless something really odd happens).

Jan


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