On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:13 AM Igor Marnat wrote:
> Dmitry,
> I don't have yet enough context to discuss Fuel 9.0 release but I have
> a question about 8.0.
>
> You mentioned that "the start of Fuel 8.0 release cycle inevitably
> remains coupled with MOS". Does it mean that we still consider
> d
Dmitry, Ruslan, Mike,
I assume that we agreed on this short plan (thank you all and Thierry
for cooperation). I fully support it.
* Short FF: create stable branch couple of weeks after FF for upstream Fuel
* Untie release schedule for upstream Fuel and MOS. This should be two
separate schedules
Thanks everyone for the feedback!
There weren't any comments about options (1) and (4), I'm interpreting
it as a consensus that we're not doing a "future" branch, and as a sign
that nobody wants to even think about CI for external forks (which I'm
sure will come back to haunt us, so don't count o
Dmitry, thank you for getting our conversations and opinions spread across
different communications channels collected here in one cohesive email.
I like Ruslan's summary, and I support every line of what Ruslan has
written here.
> Note that the "two weeks" is not really a hard requirement (could
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Igor Marnat wrote:
> Thierry, Dmitry,
> key point is that we in Fuel need to follow as much community adopted
> process as we can, and not to introduce something Fuel specific. We
> need not only to avoid forking code, but also to avoid forking
> processes and app
Thierry, Dmitry,
key point is that we in Fuel need to follow as much community adopted
process as we can, and not to introduce something Fuel specific. We
need not only to avoid forking code, but also to avoid forking
processes and approaches for Fuel.
Both #2 and #3 allow it, making it easier for
Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> TL;DR was actually hidden in the middle of the email, here's an even
> shorter version:
>
> 0) we're suffering from closing master for feature work for too long
>
> 1) continuously rebased future branch is most likely a no-go
>
> 2) short FF (SCF and stable branch afte
Sure,
TL;DR was actually hidden in the middle of the email, here's an even
shorter version:
0) we're suffering from closing master for feature work for too long
1) continuously rebased future branch is most likely a no-go
2) short FF (SCF and stable branch after 2 weeks) is an option for 8.0
Dmitry,
thank you for a well described plan.
May I please ask you for a little TL;DR excerpt of what’s going to be changed,
because I’m affraid some folks may get lost or may not have enough time to
analyze it deeply (I actually see that happening but I won’t do fingerpointing
:) ).
- romcheg
We have several problems with Fuel branching strategy that have become
enough of a bottleneck to consider re-thinking our whole release
management process. In this email, I will describe the problems, propose
a couple of alternative strategies, and try to analyze their relative
merits and associat
10 matches
Mail list logo
