Feature #5590: Proposal for sustainable branch maintenance

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (2011/11/08 0:25), Yugui wrote: >>> == Proposal Let's parallelize the bottle-neck. Review and tests >>> are necessary for stability and compatibility of released >>> branches but these processes can be parallelized. I propose the >>> following process: >> >> I agree this in general. There're some other proposals such as review before commit, but we accept Yugui's proposal for now and start doing this, right? According to commits to ruby_1_9_3, @arton is doing this already. I'm not against it. Let's find problems by doing now. Proposals like review before commit, requires LGTM*2 by committer, would be good for new proposal for branch maintenance. Now go write a proposal how good/bad it is and file a ticket! >>> * Another committer review the request. This reviewer checks if >>> this commit is good enough and backport it to the older >>> branch. >> >> Do you mean the word "backport" as committing? If so, who changes >> patchlevel? The committer? You? > > I think the committer who commit the patch should also change patch > level. Both Shyouhei's and my backport scripts automatically bump > patch level, so it is not so hard. @arton, can you do this? // NaHi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOuKhFAAoJEC7N6P3yLbI20s4H/1nGsHqYQkouPSAd9R7deXUj xSHWQ7kdRK056KID5wqewuqKxYkldgzAAZ0+osIeQuIpWP2HyiTdQJ+1os1y7IZa osLvKo0FqlDAE/SZLlF9pC8aXl8VCrNF/Mmo5AAxUk4hfz4PYZNkBfBZWb38h/cb yTcpgN/d+N/Be6by29MkhMsqxuffojoiowFX8bCK/WaETExLiLRNB+Pfy5Dnvx7j /aomyBS9uRbA4aGUuWfujW8MATo0SikOgNez/2dhBeqVhrea5jAXsIlju6ndsInD pQGs6xlijxi2ZDhjTcfdXBhhV0CJgiGzAJtk/PMBmn1y3+G/BgWjWTMnW7kes2E= =FiZ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 03:11:55PM +0900, Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > == Background > I have been maintaining ruby_1_9_1 and ruby_1_9_2 branch. > Ruby 1.9 is now stable as Ruby 1.8 was, but it has not yet reached to > the bugless nirvana. So Ruby 1.9 needs continuous maintenance. > > But actually ruby_1_9_1 is no longer well-maintained. My backports to > ruby_1_9_? tend to be late. There is a bottle-neck. > > The bottle-neck is review process for commits in trunk. > A few bug is branch-specific. Most of bugs in Ruby 1.9.x reproduce > with trunk too. So I rarely need to write a branch specific patch. > Just backporting from trunk fixes most of bugs in Ruby 1.9.x. > But I need to read a commit carefully and run unit tests before > backport the commit. This review process takes really really long. > That's why patch level releases have been late. > > == Proposal > Let's parallelize the bottle-neck. > Review and tests are necessary for stability and compatibility of > released branches but these processes can be parallelized. > I propose the following process: > > * A committer who fixed a bug in trunk should also check if the bug > reproduces with other active branches. If reproduces, (s)he should > create a backport request on the Redmine. > * Or anyone who want us to backport a commit in trunk can create a > backport request. > * Another committer review the request. This reviewer checks if this > commit is good enough and backport it to the older branch. > * Any committer who thinks the backport breaks compatiblity can revert > it. > * Eventually the maintainer of the branch decides to revert or not. I would like to try the new system. :-) I've submitted a backport request here: http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5646 Can someone +1, and I'll merge to the bugfix branch? Thank you! -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/

• Status changed from Open to Closed

See also [ruby-dev:45183] and [ruby-core:42363]