master vs. next

master vs. next

[Nathan Cutler]

I'm a newcomer to the ceph project. SubmittingPatches says to target
next for bugfixes and master for features. Beyond that I only have the
vaguest notion of what the next branch is for and how patches get moved
back and forth between master and next. Can anyone comment?

-- 
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037

Re: master vs. next

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> I'm a newcomer to the ceph project. SubmittingPatches says to target
> next for bugfixes and master for features. Beyond that I only have the
> vaguest notion of what the next branch is for and how patches get moved
> back and forth between master and next. Can anyone comment?

next is development release branch (while firefly, hammer, etc are
stable release branches).  Bugfix PRs are submitted against next, next
is periodically merged into master.  In fact anybody can merge next
into master at any time to get the fix merged into next in master.
(Not the other way around - fixes are not supposed to go into master and
then be cherry-picked into next.)  After the development release is
cut, next is reset to master.

I'm sure others will correct me if I missed something.

Thanks,

                Ilya

Re: master vs. next

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]



On 15/05/2015 11:48, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I'm a newcomer to the ceph project. SubmittingPatches says to target
>> next for bugfixes and master for features. Beyond that I only have the
>> vaguest notion of what the next branch is for and how patches get moved
>> back and forth between master and next. Can anyone comment?
> 
> next is development release branch (while firefly, hammer, etc are
> stable release branches).  Bugfix PRs are submitted against next, next
> is periodically merged into master.  In fact anybody can merge next
> into master at any time to get the fix merged into next in master.
> (Not the other way around - fixes are not supposed to go into master and
> then be cherry-picked into next.)  After the development release is
> cut, next is reset to master.
> 
> I'm sure others will correct me if I missed something.

I've always targeted commits to master (although I should have used next instead). The only downside of doing that is that my commit will only be in the +2 development version, or is there another inconvenience ?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>                 Ilya
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: master vs. next

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 05/15/2015 10:48 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I'm a newcomer to the ceph project. SubmittingPatches says to target
>> next for bugfixes and master for features. Beyond that I only have the
>> vaguest notion of what the next branch is for and how patches get moved
>> back and forth between master and next. Can anyone comment?
> 
> next is development release branch (while firefly, hammer, etc are
> stable release branches).  Bugfix PRs are submitted against next, next
> is periodically merged into master.  In fact anybody can merge next
> into master at any time to get the fix merged into next in master.
> (Not the other way around - fixes are not supposed to go into master and
> then be cherry-picked into next.)  After the development release is
> cut, next is reset to master.
> 
> I'm sure others will correct me if I missed something.
> 

I think Ilya is right about this.

As I recall from the last time someone patiently explained this to me,
the workflow is as follows:

1. dev cycle begins
  - features go to master

2. dev cycle ends
  - next is branched off of master
  - next will be the next dev release to be released once it's ready
  - bugfixes go into 'next', 'next' is feature frozen
  - 'next' is frequently merged into master

There's an overlap between the current dev cycle and the last dev cycle.
 As we are testing the last dev cycle and preparing the release, work
for the current dev cycle targets master -- not next, unless it's for
bugs from the previous release.

Anyway, maybe I got something wrong here (hopefully not all of it!), but
I tend to simply target master when it's a feature and 'next' if it's an
old bug.

  -Joao

Re: master vs. next

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/05/2015 11:48, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>>> I'm a newcomer to the ceph project. SubmittingPatches says to target
>>> next for bugfixes and master for features. Beyond that I only have the
>>> vaguest notion of what the next branch is for and how patches get moved
>>> back and forth between master and next. Can anyone comment?
>>
>> next is development release branch (while firefly, hammer, etc are
>> stable release branches).  Bugfix PRs are submitted against next, next
>> is periodically merged into master.  In fact anybody can merge next
>> into master at any time to get the fix merged into next in master.
>> (Not the other way around - fixes are not supposed to go into master and
>> then be cherry-picked into next.)  After the development release is
>> cut, next is reset to master.
>>
>> I'm sure others will correct me if I missed something.
>
> I've always targeted commits to master (although I should have used next instead). The only downside of doing that is that my commit will only be in the +2 development version, or is there another inconvenience ?

For regular commits (features, enhancements, cleanups, etc) you should
target master, as you always have.  The fact that those commits don't
show up in any release right away is a pretty much a feature ;)

If you need to fix something that is broken in next, then you target
next.  I'm sure sometimes on an ad-hoc basis commits are cherry-picked
from master into next or even go directly into next to expedite things,
but that's rare and not something a newcomer should be concerned about.

That's my understanding - I suspect you, given your involvement into
backporting efforts, know more about this than I do.

Thanks,

                Ilya

Re: master vs. next

[Nathan Cutler]

On 2015-05-15 12:45, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> If you need to fix something that is broken in next, then you target
> next.  I'm sure sometimes on an ad-hoc basis commits are cherry-picked
> from master into next or even go directly into next to expedite things,
> but that's rare and not something a newcomer should be concerned about.

SubmittingPatches says to target next for bugfixes. So far I have only
been pushing bugfixes, so I have been targeting that branch. And when
the patch is merged, it goes directly into next. So I don't understand
why you say that's rare and not something I should be concerned about?

-- 
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037

Re: master vs. next

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 2015-05-15 12:45, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> If you need to fix something that is broken in next, then you target
>> next.  I'm sure sometimes on an ad-hoc basis commits are cherry-picked
>> from master into next or even go directly into next to expedite things,
>> but that's rare and not something a newcomer should be concerned about.
>
> SubmittingPatches says to target next for bugfixes. So far I have only
> been pushing bugfixes, so I have been targeting that branch. And when
> the patch is merged, it goes directly into next. So I don't understand

That's what the first sentence in the paragraph you quoted says.

> why you say that's rare and not something I should be concerned about?

Here I was referring to when something that isn't strictly a bugfix
goes to next or when something goes to master intentionally or by
mistake and then cherry-picked into next by Sage or others after
discussion.  The point I was trying to make is that *that* is something
out of the ordinary and hence something that newcomers don't have to
worry about so much.

Thanks,

                Ilya