[haiku-development] Re: Haiku R1A4 Postmortem

  • From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:41:43 +0100

On 12/09/2012 09:36 PM, luroh wrote:
Ingo Weinhold wrote:
On 12/09/2012 07:25 PM, Landon Fuller wrote:
FreeBSD has a very solid process for handling release engineering, with
the additional benefit of it being well documented; I think it could be
worth cribbing from their experience:
http://www5.us.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/releng/index.html


Sounds reasonable. And it isn't that different from our process either.

I'm sorry, but I got slightly upset by reading your statement.  If
anything, surely you must admit that the FreeBSD process better
resembles my suggestion in this very thread than our current release
process? Let's see:

* RM laying down the law - check.

How is that different from our current process? AFAI understand your proposal you would mainly remove the RM's prerogative for exclusive branch commits, not give the RM any additional power.

* Developers committing to branch - check.

After explicit approval by the RM. Every single commit goes to the trunk first and is approved by the RM *before* it is committed to the branch. I pointed out the only difference to our process in my previous mail: Approval + delegation of the commit vs. approval + committing themselves.

* Joint code review - check.

No clue what you mean by that point.

It is nothing at all like our current process.

We must completely misunderstand each other. :-/ Save for the two things I've pointed out it is pretty much exactly what we've been doing.

A
main difference is that they have a permanent stable branch, which we don't
(we might consider that, maybe when starting with the beta phase). Aside
from that, instead of having the RM do the merging themselves, they only
have to approve of merge requests and have the developers do the actual job.

Not during their initial 15-day merge window.

We do the same before creating the release branch. The only difference is that we don't have a permanent stable branch. Their release branch effectively starts after those 15 days, replacing the stable branch for 30 days.

AFAI understand it these 15 days aren't any different from the time before. The stable branch is permanently open for integration of stable stuff from the trunk, with the exception for the 30 days it serves as a release branch.

CU, Ingo


Other related posts: