On 30/01/2013 01:58, Alex Keybl wrote:
I think you should s/master/nightly/ here. Nightly will be fed by master as
usual. As I suggest most of the confusion seems to come from naming but master
should never be considered as a safe branch. Use at your own risk.
Do we think that master will be so regression prone that it warrants the
additional overhead of testing and merging to nightly in the short term? And do
we have somebody already up for performing that duty? My impression (wrong or
otherwise) was that it was a temporary branch because of the speed with which
we were trying to approach v1, and would be desirable to deprecate until we
again come closer to a major version release (v2).
I've asked that we slow down on
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=834789 (originally my request, so
apologies for the churn) until we figure out a flow that works for Gaia devs.
I discussed on IRC and my main concern is about:
- Having QA folks using different changesets
- Having the tree broken after some changes made by a dev
With that said and since QA is going to focused on v1-train and since I want to
believe that tests on TBPL will appears soon let's try to remove the nightly
branch.
If the changesets nightmare comes back or if the tree is broken too often I
believe the removal of the branch should be discussed again.
Vivien.
-Alex
On Jan 29, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Vivien <vnico...@mozilla.com> wrote:
On 29/01/2013 16:38, Alex Keybl wrote:
Why are you going to delete the nightly branch? gaia-master is the equivalent
of mozilla-inbound and gaia-nightly is the equivalent of mozilla-central. Are
you going to delete mozilla-central as well? :)
We were under the impression that the nightly branch caused a lot of overhead
and some landing lag, since testing that branch prior to merging is a manual
job.
The lag for landing is expected but I feel like it could be reduce if there
were more sheriffs. Nobody wants this responsibility right now because it
force you to run a set of tests manually so overhead is a consequence of the
lack of automation tests. This should hopefully be resolved by
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=813301
It seemed as if master would be an appropriate place to do "nightly" equivalent
work prior to uplift to v1-train/v1.x branches.
If that's not the case, engineering can feel free to continue using it. I'm just curious
which repo below "nightly" would feed into.
v1.0.0 - as named
v1-train - tip of v1.x, currently v1.0.1
master - v2 (but can also include future v1 feature work)
I think you should s/master/nightly/ here. Nightly will be fed by master as
usual. As I suggest most of the confusion seems to come from naming but master
should never be considered as a safe branch. Use at your own risk.
Vivien.
-Alex
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Vivien <vnico...@mozilla.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2013 23:51, John Ford wrote:
Hello,
We are deprecating the nightly branch of both Gaia and b2g-manifest (repo
manifests). The nightly branch will be superseded by the v1-train branch of
both Gaia and b2g-manifest. We will be deleting the nightly branch in the near
future.
Why are you going to delete the nightly branch? gaia-master is the equivalent
of mozilla-inbound and gaia-nightly is the equivalent of mozilla-central. Are
you going to delete mozilla-central as well? :)
We learned a lot on the field in the past, please does not regress things and
put us back in a state where it is impossible for devs to provide a stable
build and for QA to give a reasonable changesets. v1-train is one things but
for all the people that are going to work on 2.0 features they should expect to
have a stable branch is possible. If that's just a naming question we can
rename master to inbound...
There will also be a v1.0.0 branch of both repositories for the work tracking
our 1.0.0 release.
The new default branch to pull in B2G's config.sh script is 'v1-train'. If
you're currently on the nightly branch and would like to be on the supported
v1-train branch, you can pull updates to your top level B2G repository and
rerun ./config.sh. An example to do this would be:
$ cd B2G
$ git fetch origin && git merge origin/master
$ ./config.sh <device>
This will set up your repo tree and do a repo sync with the new branches. In
an effort to reduce confusion, here is the mappings between the BRANCH value
passed to config.sh and the branches of Gecko and Gaia you'll end up with:
* "BRANCH=master ./config.sh" will yield an ancient copy [1] of Gecko's
'master' branch (mozilla-central) and Gaia's 'master' branch
I feel strongly against that. This is bringing Chaos back. What are the
rationale to not use the nightly branch?
* "BRANCH=v1-train ./config.sh" will yield Gecko's 'gecko-18' (mozilla-b2g18)
branch and Gaia's 'v1-train' branch
* "BRANCH=v1.0.0 ./config.sh" will yield Gecko's 'v1.0.0' branch and Gaia's
'v1.0.0' branch
If you have more questions about branching or about what code ends up where,
there is a helpful wiki page that's maintained by our Release Management team
at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing that explains B2G
branching in more detail. If you still have questions, please feel free to ask
me.
Thanks,
John Ford
[1] for info, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=820955. If you
want to work on mozilla-central, it's probably best to manage your own m-c tree
and use GECKO_PATH in .userconfig
_______________________________________________
dev-gaia mailing list
dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-gaia
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
