From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Hammer backport and bypassing procedure Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 21:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <55E0B396.2090602@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="57MiWgjVFCeCNwS52G07uIocTaXa5WmG3" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:45506 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752164AbbH1TQl (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:16:41 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Abhishek Varshney Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --57MiWgjVFCeCNwS52G07uIocTaXa5WmG3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Abhishek, We've just had an example of a backport merged into hammer although it di= d not follow the procedure : https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5691 It's a key aspect of backports : we're bound to follow procedure, but dev= elopers are allowed to bypass it entirely. It may seem like something lea= ding to chaos and frustration but it turns out to be exactly the opposite= =2E In a nutshell, it would be constant source of frustration for develop= ers to learn and obey the rules documented at http://tracker.ceph.com/pro= jects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO because it would not benefit them signific= antly. It would also be a problem for us, backporters, because developers= would not be as interested in backporting and our workload would signifi= cantly increase. When a developer prepares a backport on his / her own, we update the pull= request and the issues to obey the procedure so the (s)he does not have = to. Sure, it's a little tedious but it's a small price to pay for the ben= efit of having a backport being dealt with. That's what I did for https:/= /github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5691 : updaging the corresponding issues, addi= ng cross references to the pull request. Samuel Just felt confident enough about the backport that it did not need= a rados run to verify it does the right thing. Since it's ultimately Sam= 's responsibility, that's also ok. The only thing we need to keep in mind= when analyzing the next rados run is that this backport did not pass yet= =2E We don't have a way to mark commits that bypassed tests just yet, if = you have ideas let us know :-) Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --57MiWgjVFCeCNwS52G07uIocTaXa5WmG3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlXgs5YACgkQ8dLMyEl6F20ahwCfe5MfdA1O0xIXW74RONOZUn3h PKMAoIVWxVf+AQe7lMwE2drQRXNsH1qA =lGJK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --57MiWgjVFCeCNwS52G07uIocTaXa5WmG3--