On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:17 +0700, Stuart Bishop wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Danilo Šegan<[email protected]> wrote: > > > У пет, 07. 08 2009. у 11:04 +0700, Stuart Bishop пише: > > > >> There are not 40 other revisions. A theoretical 0.14.1 -> 0.15 is not > >> that big a leap. > > > > I must admit to not being completely comfortable with buildout setup for > > core pieces like Storm, and I may have misunderstood all the version > > names we use there. > > > > 2.2.7 branch versions.cfg mentions: > > > > storm = 0.14salgado-storm-launchpad-288-308 > > On launchpad/devel: > > storm = 0.14trunk-321 > > > I assumed that was storm 0.14 (rev 283 if I remember correctly) + > > revisions 288 and 308. Storm trunk is already at revision 324. That's > > 39 revisions we haven't seen yet in all parts of Launchpad. > > > If I am mistaken, and 288-308 actually means all revisions between 288 > > and 308, including them, then it's only 19 revisions of changes to > > Storm. Much better, but still not perfect. > > I don't know exactly what is in that branch - Salgado landed that one.
That branch had 0.14 plus revs 288 and 308; just that. After some time we noticed the bug that r308 was supposed to fix was not, so I submitted r319 to storm's trunk and we then cherry picked it into production. > > > >> I thought now was the perfect time to upgrade because we have two > >> entire cycles on edge. > > > > Otherwise, it would have been. But there are two more important things > > we are doing right now: > > > > * we are aiming for a major milestone 3.0, and we do want it well > > tested with all the production parameters around them > > Sure. So lets test it with 0.15 rather than some fork we have > assembled ourselves. Lots of new UI code means lots of new database > stuff too as lists get sorted differently, new reports are created, > whole new searches implemented. Should all that new code be targeted > at the Storm branch with the most bug fixes, or the branch that > happens to have the bug fixes that have bitten us in the past? I kind of agree with Stuart, but what concerns me are the scripts that we only run on production -- these are not going to be tested against 0.15 until we roll 3.0 out. > > > * these 'two entire cycles' are supposed to be spent doing mostly UI, > > meaning we should not have to devote engineers doing fixes for > > incompatible Storm changes > > You assuming there need to be changes for incompatible Storm changes. > If there are incompatible Storm changes, we could make the decision on > rolling back then. Your also assuming that our 0.14.x fork will > somehow be less buggy are more stable than 0.15. I don't think that is > the case, and we will be on our own if we tickle these bugs. > > > >> We are currently running what will be one > >> revision away from 0.15 on edge (some compile fixes for Windows need > >> to land). > > > > A lot of the integration bits of Launchpad don't run on edge. For > > instance, we still would not have caught bug #408845 with this set-up, > > since that happened in only <10% of our poimport script runs. Agreed. ;) > > That bug is an interesting one to cite - Salgado reported it last > year. It is a bug that has been with us since the initial Storm > migration I think - it is unrelated to Storm updates. That's not true; I uncovered the bug when attempting to update our storm branch to the latest trunk. The version we used before 2.2.7 didn't have that bug. -- Guilherme Salgado <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
