From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: [URGENT RFC] Branching and reopening -unstable Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:21:58 +0800 Message-ID: <55D22646.4000405@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <20150811104407.GC7460@zion.uk.xensource.com> <20150811123117.GI7460@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRP3P-00016o-0l for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:22:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20150811123117.GI7460@zion.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Wei Liu , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Cc: jgross@suse.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, tamas@tklengyel.com, keir@xen.org, Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , Andrew Cooper , Dario Faggioli , Ian Jackson , tim@xen.org, Jan Beulich , yang.z.zhang@intel.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Wei, Thanks for CCing me, for me, I prefer option 2, it won't affect the normal development release cycle, if the contributor wants to contribute to -unstable, then it is his responsibility to resolve the confilicts on the main branch. but I think it depends on the maintainers who will make the decision. On 08/11/2015 08:31 PM, Wei Liu wrote: > CCing Hongyang, I missed him when I copy-n-paste emails from MAINTAINERS. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:44:07AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: >> Hi all >> >> RC1 is going to be tagged this week (maybe today). We need to figure >> out when to branch / reopen -unstable for committing and what rules >> should be applied until 4.6 is out of the door. >> >> Ian, Ian and I had a conversation IRL. We discussed several things, >> but figured it is necessary to have more people involved before making >> any decision. >> >> Here is my recollection of the conversation. >> >> Branching should be done at one of the RC tags. It might not be enough >> time for us to reach consensus before tagging RC1, so I would say lets >> branch at RC2 if we don't observe blocker bugs. >> >> Maintainers should be responsible for both 4.6 branch and -unstable >> branch. >> >> As for bug fixes, here are two options. >> >> Option 1: bug fixes go into -unstable, backport / cherry-pick bug >> fixes back to 4.6. This seems to leave the tree in half frozen status >> because we need to reject refactoring patches in case they cause >> backporting failure. >> >> Option 2: bug fixes go into 4.6, merge them to -unstable. If merge has >> conflict and maintainers can't deal with that, the authors of those >> changes in -unstable which cause conflict is responsible for fixing up >> the conflict. >> >> Ian and Ian, anything I miss? Anything to add? >> >> Others, thoughts? >> >> Wei. > . > -- Thanks, Yang.