[Gluster-Maintainers] Lock down period merge process
srangana at redhat.com
Tue Aug 14 11:52:07 UTC 2018
On 08/09/2018 12:29 AM, Nigel Babu wrote:
> I would trust tooling that prevents merges rather than good faith. I
> have worked on projects where we trust good faith, but still enforce
> that with tooling. It's highly likely for one or two committers to be
> unaware of an ongoing lock down. As the number of maintainers increase,
> the chances of someone coming back from PTO and accidentally merging
> something is high.
Agree, I would also go with a few having merge rights, to prevent above
> The extraneous situation exception applies even now. I expect the
> janitors who have commit access in the event of a lock down to use their
> judgment to merge such patches.
> : https://mozilla-releng.net/treestatus
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:25 AM Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com
> <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>> wrote:
> The following thread talks about a merge during a merge lockdown, with
> differing view points (this mail is not to discuss the view points).
> The root of the problem is that we leave the current process to good
> faith. If we have a simple rule that we will not merge anything during a
> lock down period, this confusion and any future repetitions of the same
> would not occur.
> I propose that we follow the simpler rule, and would like to hear
> thoughts around this.
> This also means that in the future, we may not need to remove commit
> access for other maintainers, as we do *not* follow a good faith policy,
> and instead depend on being able to revert and announce on the threads
> why we do so.
> Please note, if there are extraneous situations (say reported security
> vulnerabilities that need fixes ASAP) we may need to loosen up the
> stringency, as that would take precedence over the lock down. These
> exceptions though, can be called out and hence treated as such.
> PS: Added Yaniv to the CC as he reported the deviance
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health
> (Week of 30th July)
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:22:09 +0300
> From: Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com <mailto:ykaul at redhat.com>>
> To: Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com
> <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>>
> CC: GlusterFS Maintainers <maintainers at gluster.org
> <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>>, Gluster Devel
> <gluster-devel at gluster.org <mailto:gluster-devel at gluster.org>>,
> Nigel Babu <nigelb at redhat.com <mailto:nigelb at redhat.com>>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:46 PM Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com
> <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>
> <mailto:srangana at redhat.com <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>>> wrote:
> On 08/07/2018 02:58 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> > The intention is to stabilize master and not add more patches
> that my
> > destabilize it.
> > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/20603/ has been merged.
> > As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with stabilization and
> > be reverted.
> Posted this on the gerrit review as well:
> 4.1 does not have nightly tests, those run on master only.
> That should change of course. We cannot strive for stability otherwise,
> Stability of master does not (will not), in the near term guarantee
> stability of release branches, unless patches that impact code
> on release branches, get fixes on master and are back ported.
> Release branches get fixes back ported (as is normal), this fix
> and its
> merge should not impact current master stability in any way, and
> stability of 4.1 branch.
> The current hold is on master, not on release branches. I agree that
> merging further code changes on release branches (for example
> issues that are backported (see ), as there are tests that fail
> regularly on master), may further destabilize the release
> branch. This
> patch is not one of those.
> Two issues I have with the merge:
> 1. It just makes comparing master branch to release branch harder. For
> example, to understand if there's a test that fails on master but
> succeeds on release branch, or vice versa.
> 2. It means we are not focused on stabilizing master branch.
> Merging patches on release branches are allowed by release
> owners only,
> and usual practice is keeping the backlog low (merging weekly)
> in these
> cases as per the dashboard .
> Allowing for the above 2 reasons this patch was found,
> - Not on master
> - Not stabilizing or destabilizing the release branch
> and hence was merged.
> If maintainers disagree I can revert the same.
>  Release 4.1 dashboard:
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
More information about the maintainers