ve them
>on master too. How to go about it?
>
>Thanks,
>~Talluri
>
>On 23/10/14 11:47 am, "Animesh Chaturvedi"
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, Octob
I share your frustration Rajani, I made some steps which I feel are
turned back now. I am giving up and really not feeling this is worth
my effort anymore.
People don't take the effort to commit on a branch. gating commits is
and will not solve unwillingness. It will slow us down at committing
bug
as Travis is happy and some of my tests went fine, I pushed the merge.
~Rajani
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote:
> Travis is happy with the merge. Can I push this?
>
> ~Rajani
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Rajani Karuturi
> wrote:
>
>> I did merge -s ours and someho
Travis is happy with the merge. Can I push this?
~Rajani
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote:
> I did merge -s ours and somehow didnt see any issue. (
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/36)
> will wait for the Travis report (
> https://travis-ci.org/apache/cloudstack
These problems existed for 4.4 and the same continued to 4.5. Despite
discussing lot of things, we didnt act on anything and we are continuing
the same to 4.6
There is no plan whatsoever to address any of those issues.
~Rajani
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:33 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2
I did merge -s ours and somehow didnt see any issue. (
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/36)
will wait for the Travis report (
https://travis-ci.org/apache/cloudstack/builds/40033174)
I havent used -X before. But, from the documentation I understood it as,
the merge strategy will be applie
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote:
> that means, we postponed the git problems to 4.6. :(
>
> It feels like as a community we are running away from making any changes to
> the way we interact with git. We seem to discuss it a lot but, never act on
> it.
I don't think we are r
Id did do -s ours:) but if we don't merge -s ... -X ours it doesn't help.
mobile dev with bilingual spelling checker used (read at your own risk)
Op 3 nov. 2014 05:40 schreef "Rajani Karuturi" :
> that means, we postponed the git problems to 4.6. :(
>
> It feels like as a community we are running
that means, we postponed the git problems to 4.6. :(
It feels like as a community we are running away from making any changes to
the way we interact with git. We seem to discuss it a lot but, never act on
it.
What I don't understand is, are we saying the way we use git is right? or
are we just sh
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Rajani Karuturi wrote:
> Can we atleast follow the merge part of it? ie) commit to 4.5 and then
> merge 4.5 to master?
>
> merging wont be easy unless everybody agrees and does merge for their
> commits.
>
It won't work; master and 4.5 have both diverged, even if
gt;> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 2:00 AM
> >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
> >>> commit
> >>>
> >>> A
master too. How to go about it?
>
> Thanks,
> ~Talluri
>
> On 23/10/14 11:47 am, "Animesh Chaturvedi"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 201
-Original Message-
>> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 2:00 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
>> commit
>>
>> After [1] I would like
At the moment it must be called 'hotfix/*' or 'bugfix/*'. we should
add 'feature/*' to that.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Mike Tutkowski
wrote:
> Cool...so, it sounds like any branch we create in the repo will
> automatically have CI run against it post each commit.
>
> How do you know when
Cool...so, it sounds like any branch we create in the repo will
automatically have CI run against it post each commit.
How do you know when CI has completed and what the results are?
At that point, you could treat your own branch (as Daan says) as the
"forward" branch. Once CI has been successful
We do run ci on branches!
mobile dev with bilingual spelling checker used (read at your own risk)
Op 24 okt. 2014 20:38 schreef "Mike Tutkowski" :
> Right, we just need to make sure CI comes into play before the merge.
>
> Hence my earlier reply to what Daan mention:
>
> "My main concern was CI r
mobile dev with bilingual spelling checker used (read at your own risk)
Op 24 okt. 2014 20:30 schreef "David Nalley" :
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Daan Hoogland
wrote:
> > Mike, Why have everybody work on the same branch. people can work on
> > their own branch and when they are done they
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> Mike, Why have everybody work on the same branch. people can work on
> their own branch and when they are done they can rebase on the tip see
> ci success and then merge. The problem with forward branches is
> abandoned work or work that for
Right, we just need to make sure CI comes into play before the merge.
Hence my earlier reply to what Daan mention:
"My main concern was CI running before the code was checked into the "real"
branch from the staging branch."
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24
rvedi <
> > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:31 AM
> >> > To: d
the specified branch (not now and not with
> future merges other people or yourself may do).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-----
>> > From: Daan
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi
wrote:
>> I sttrongly disagree with Animesh here and think Rohit is overlooking a
>> simple fact. At the moment the branches are for 'stabalizing'.
>> Fixing on master first is in direct contradiction with that.
>>
>> We have not been stabalizin
chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:31 AM
> > To: dev
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:31 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
> commit
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Rohit Yadav
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:22 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
> commit
>
> Hi,
>
> > On
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 23-Oct-2014, at 11:47 am, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> wrote:
...
>> The approach for fixing issues in release branch first and master later is
>> not practical as we may miss out commits not made into master and future
>> release reg
Hi,
> On 23-Oct-2014, at 11:47 am, Animesh Chaturvedi
> wrote:
>
> [Animesh] Sebastian you have brought up a good point dependency on QA team
> from Citrix is an issue for the project. This was raised in the past as well
> and Alex's proposal [1] few months back using CI was in my opinion is
> -Original Message-
> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 2:00 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on
> commit
>
> After [1] I would like to officially bring u
On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:21 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> Hi Sebastien:
>
> So I like the idea of:
>
> 1. Us putting up all inbound code for review.
> 2. Gating that code on a testing pass
> 3. Having someone else look at it before committing.
>
> I don't think that should mean that all code that wo
Hi Sebastien:
So I like the idea of:
1. Us putting up all inbound code for review.
2. Gating that code on a testing pass
3. Having someone else look at it before committing.
I don't think that should mean that all code that works gets an
immediate pass. I also don't think that we should have n R
ull request. I don't want
>> the
>>>> author to push the code, but I think the code reviewer could do this;
>> in
>>>> practice the RM will not be able to review everything again so is
>> likely
>>> to
>>>> rubber-stamp the resul
>>>
>>> I am +1 on moving ahead with any of these parts individually, rather than
>>> waiting for everything to be in place before doing anything.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Turner
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
his;
> in
> > > practice the RM will not be able to review everything again so is
> likely
> > to
> > > rubber-stamp the results of the code review / automated testing. But I
> > > could live with the master RM doing it.
> > >
> > > I am +1 on mo
e in place before doing anything.
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Turner
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com ]
> > Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move
n...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
>
> After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal.
>
> [Proposal]
>
> All commits come t
ogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>>
> > Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> > Date: Monday, October 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM
> > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:d
t;dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Subject: R
@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Date: Monday, October 20, 2014 at 10:34 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
No Chiradeep, Pull of the req
, 2014 at 2:00 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <
> dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
>
> After [1] I would like to officially bring up t
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Won’t this proposal make GitHub the canonical repository? I don’t see ASF
> infra being too happy with that.
>
>
Shouldn't have to, you can still merge/push to the ASF infra repository and
only the PR would l
ay, October 18, 2014 at 2:00 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:00 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal.
>
> [Proposal]
>
> All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a
> moratorium period (agreed suspension of activity) during which direct
> commit
ce before doing anything.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Turner
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.or
; >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
> >
> > After [1] I would like to o
n place before doing anything.
>
> --
> Stephen Turner
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
>
: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit
After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal.
[Proposal]
All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a
moratorium period (agreed suspension of act
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/18/2014 11:00 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following
> proposal.
>
> [Proposal] All commits come through github PR, *even* for
> committers. We declare a moratorium period (agreed suspension of
> act
Hi,
> On 18-Oct-2014, at 2:30 pm, sebgoa wrote:
>
> [Proposal]
>
> All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a
> moratorium period (agreed suspension of activity) during which direct commit
> to master is forbidden.
> Only the master RM is allowed to merge PR in
After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal.
[Proposal]
All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a
moratorium period (agreed suspension of activity) during which direct commit to
master is forbidden.
Only the master RM is allowed to merg
49 matches
Mail list logo
