Yup. Right now when a <project>-core member clicks 'Approve' after code review, tarmac picks it up and pushes to trunk assuming unittests pass. Instead it could push to staging and trigger a hook in jenkins which would fire off a bunch of other jobs that run the staging branch through a battery of tests. If they all check out ok (possibly a human check in there to make sure variable results like performance testing are ok), staging gets pushed to the real trunk.
-Eric On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:36:16PM -0600, Trey Morris wrote: > I see. So their use would in general be for the use of automated systems? > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Eric Day <e...@oddments.org> wrote: > > The extra branches are just an implementation detail, we can have > them or not. It's really a matter of if it's possible and/or easier > to have jenkins fire off new jobs with arbitrary branches that need > to be merged with trunk for each job vs merging and pushing to a > staging branch and have the jobs test that. Either way, we get the > same result. We will also have the flexibility to test arbitrary > branches before proposing either way. These extra "trunks" will not > need to be managed, as tarmac/jenkins will control them. > -Eric > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:24:11PM -0600, Trey Morris wrote: > > I'm curious what the point of having a line of trunks for a commit > to > > bounce down on its way to trunk would gain us other than having to > manage > > a line of trunks. What's wrong with status quo branch management > (other > > than tests)? What's wrong with having the commit sit in its LP > topic > > branch, which is every bit as publicly accessible as any branch in > the > > line of trunks would be? The test system (or anyone who wants to > play with > > it) can just grab trunk merge the topic branch and run however many > levels > > or types of tests we deem appropriate. Success = trunk. Fail = test > fail > > status in the test report. > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Mark Washenberger > > <mark.washenber...@rackspace.com> wrote: > > >> This is what we're working on, and what Justin is proposing, > Mark. > > >> > > >> Basically, in Drizzle-land, people propose a merge into trunk, > Hudson > > >> picks up that proposal, pulls the brnach into > lp:drizzle/staging, > > >> builds Drizzle on all supported platforms (>12 OS/distro > combos), > > then > > >> runs all automated regression testing against the proposed > branch > > (can > > >> take 3 or more hours). > > >> > > >> We're proposing the same kind of automation for OpenStack. > > > > > > Sorry, I misunderstood what Justin was proposing. This sounds > good to > > me. > > > > > > We could also do this without a staging branch by having the > automated > > system check out trunk and merge the proposed branch locally. > > > > Sure, this is, of course, quite possible, too :) > > > > One thing that a staging-first branch allows, though, is to set > up an > > environment where some *very* minor or style-only type commits > can be > > fed into trunk directly without having to got through the full > testing > > loop... > > -jay > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
