I think we really should consider having a regular process to merge from 1.3-rel to master.
1. It would be much more efficient than moving changes one by one. 2. We already saw in 1.2 that it was error prone and a lot of changes got left out, and it took a lot of time afterwards to go and reconcile. 3. No more having to go research to find out if a particular fix made into master? The process could be pretty light-weight and can be done on a regular cadence (perhaps once a week). Thanks, - Omar From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Soemin Tjong Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:08 PM To: Bell, Richard S <richard.s.bell at intel.com>; ??? (Uze Choi) <uzchoi at samsung.com>; Kevin Kane <kkane at microsoft.com>; 'Mats Wichmann' <mats at wichmann.us>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear to be. Learn about spoofing<http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing> Feedback<http://aka.ms/SafetyTipsFeedback> I like Kevin?s suggestion, automatic and regular merge from 1.3-rel to master is efficient for everyone. Relevant maintainers/committers should be ready to help with merge conflicts. Unless if there are cases where changes are to remain only in 1.3. But those should be exceptions and how they are handled should be discussed separately. From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bell, Richard S Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 9:25 AM To: ??? (Uze Choi) <uzchoi at samsung.com>; Kevin Kane <kkane at microsoft.com>; 'Mats Wichmann' <mats at wichmann.us>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. Uze, So you are saying that there will be no automatic merging from 1.3-rel to master. That the it is responsibility maintainer and merges will be done manually? Thanks, -Rick From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ??? (Uze Choi) Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:56 PM To: 'Kevin Kane' <kkane at microsoft.com<mailto:kkane at microsoft.com>>; 'Mats Wichmann' <mats at wichmann.us<mailto:mats at wichmann.us>>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: Re: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. There is no regular merging release branch to master. This work is maintainer responsibility with help of committer. If a commit is related with release, it should be launched on release branch first and merge back to master branch with maintainer responsibility. BR, Uze Choi From: Kevin Kane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:49 AM To: uzchoi at samsung.com<mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com>; Mats Wichmann; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. Two more things: 1. Do we have a resource available to make sure there are regular merges from 1.3-rel to master? This also means there should never be a cherry-pick from 1.3-rel to master. 2. For changes already up for master to be later cherry-picked: There was confusion during 1.2 about who was responsible for doing the cherry-picks. I suggest this time around, if an author has submitted a change to master and believes it should be on 1.3-rel, the author is responsible for doing the cherry-pick and getting the appropriate people on the review, to shepherd the change into 1.3-rel. There should be no expectation that anyone else will cherry-pick the change to 1.3-rel. From: ??? [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:50 PM To: Kevin Kane <kkane at microsoft.com<mailto:kkane at microsoft.com>>; Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us<mailto:mats at wichmann.us>>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. Definitely. Please mergeback into master after work on 1.3-rel if not release branch specific. BR Uze Choi --------- Original Message --------- Sender : Kevin Kane <kkane at microsoft.com<mailto:kkane at microsoft.com>> Date : 2017-04-11 07:31 (GMT+9) Title : RE: RE: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. For changes that are already pending, that sounds fine, especially since the branches haven?t yet diverged at all. But from this point forward, for any new changes, let?s submit directly to 1.3-rel and then have a regular merge cadence. From: ??? [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:24 PM To: Kevin Kane <kkane at microsoft.com<mailto:kkane at microsoft.com>>; Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us<mailto:mats at wichmann.us>>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: RE: RE: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. Hi Kevin, Thank you for your suggestion. It will be good to strictly follow the release branch merging policy. However for the better efficiency, let's accept currently pending commits merged into master branch first and cherrypick in to 1.3-rel as a next step. BR Uze Choi --------- Original Message --------- Sender : Kevin Kane <kkane at microsoft.com<mailto:kkane at microsoft.com>> Date : 2017-04-11 06:14 (GMT+9) Title : RE: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. It'd be better for any 1.3 changes/bug fixes to be committed directly to 1.3-rel, and then 1.3-rel should be merged regularly into master to pick those changes up for the future. I'd suggest any pending changes on master that should be in 1.3 be abandoned and resubmitted to 1.3-rel. All the cherry-picking that happened between 1.2-rel and master did not work well at all. -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 1:50 PM To: ??? (Uze Choi) <uzchoi at samsung.com<mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com>>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: Re: [dev] 1.3-rel Branch out/QA start request. On 04/10/2017 04:57 AM, ??? (Uze Choi) wrote: > Hi All, > > > > 1.3-rel branch has been created. 1.3.0 Release period just started. > > There are approximately 70 change sets waiting merge on the master > branches > > Except this patches, All code merge should have the release management Lead > review +1 on the release branch. So for owners of waiting changesets... how do we proceed? The small number I have in the queue (five public) I would not consider release-critical, but also letting master and 1.3-rel diverge is not wonderful, makes lots of work later for someone - I'm remembering what Phil and others had to do to get master back in sync with 1.2-rel. Advice please? _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.iotivity.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fiotivity-dev&data=02%7C01%7Ckkane%40microsoft.com%7C3a7057b259e34a700d8608d4805326b6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636274542026472282&sdata=kaW7CiPhNlVkyehkZTEnFkQMMNTJXNXUHlkjKaXuMWQ%3D&reserved=0 [cid:image001.gif at 01D2B465.E76F66E0] [Image removed by sender.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170413/4e4def59/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD000.jpg URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170413/4e4def59/attachment.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13402 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170413/4e4def59/attachment.gif>
