Considering how unstable our PR as well as our nightly jobs have been so far, is that an assumption we can rightfully make? Also, who'd be responsible for fixing that branch in case a PR actually breaks a nightly test?
-Marco On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:41 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > The original idea is that the promotion to the other branch is automated by > nightly CI, so it shouldn't have those problems that are mentioned, so > there shouldn't be any manual merging on that branch. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:43 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > My $0.02 > > > > We had this model dual-branch when I was at GE and it was problematic. > > Among other things, the two branches would tend to diverge to a large > > degree and you ended up just cherry-picking in stuff here and there, > which > > caused even more problems, as well as the model allows the secondary > branch > > to get pretty buggy -- human nature being what it is -- to the point > where > > it's difficult to merge it into master without freezing them both and > > stabilizing, merging into master, then stabilizing again (small things > > almost certainly went into master in the meantime -- hotfixes, critical > > features, etc, while everything was on hold stabilizing the secondary > > branch). It just double the work in the end, is what I experienced. > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:47 PM Yuan Tang <terrytangy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Second to not introduce a dev branch. We should try to improve our > > release > > > process instead and avoid another branch that may introduce confusion > > > around the source of truth. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:39 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > While the idea of staging seems to be reasonable. > > > > Most OSS projects choose not to do so because having a complicated > > > staging > > > > will likely confuse the contributors, and increase the change of > > > > divergence(between dev and master). > > > > > > > > Given that we have a release model, so in some sense the release > itself > > > > serves as a staging pt. > > > > A good approach would simply setup the nightly if necessary strive to > > fix > > > > regressions and make sure the formal release addresses the issues. > > > > > > > > TQ > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM Pedro Larroy < > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > I talk to some people about this and they thought it would be a > good > > > > idea, > > > > > so sharing it here: > > > > > > > > > > I would propose to use a staging or "dev" branch into which > nightly & > > > > > performance tests are done periodically and then this branch is > > merged > > > to > > > > > master. The goal of this workflow would be to avoid having > > regressions > > > > and > > > > > nightly failures creeping into master. PRs would get merged into > dev > > > and > > > > > dev promoted periodically / nightly into master. > > > > > > > > > > The names can be swapped as well, between dev and master, so PRS > get > > > > merged > > > > > into master and it doesn't change the workflow, and staging is the > > > branch > > > > > where nightly changes are merged to. > > > > > > > > > > Have this been considered? > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Yuan Tang > > > https://terrytangyuan.github.io/about/ < > http://twitter.com/TerryTangYuan > > > > > > <https://terrytangyuan.github.io/about/> > > > > > >
