[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Branch and release process (was: gnu: inetutils: Update to 2.4.)

From: Leo Famulari
Subject: Re: Branch and release process (was: gnu: inetutils: Update to 2.4.)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 07:56:37 -0400
User-agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-221-gec32977366-fm-20230306.001-gec329773

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023, at 23:30, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hi,
> Leo Famulari <> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 09:10:33PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>>> Felix Lechner <> writes:
>>> > With the core-updates process now abandoned, I retitled the issue to
>>> Could you share the reference of that?  I'm not against it, but our
>>> currently documented process still mention the good old staging and
>>> core-updates branches.
>> At the Guix Days in February, we discussed the branching workflow and
>> reached a rough consensus that for non-core packages (defined in
>> %core-packages), we should try to adopt a more targeted "feature branch"
>> workflow. That's actually what we used to do, before we outgrew our old
>> build farm, after which we were barely able to build one branch at a
>> time (IIRC, we would stop building master in order to build core-updates
>> or staging).
>> The discussion was summarized by Andreas here:
> Thanks!  I had missed it.  It sounds promising!
>> Currently we are demo-ing this workflow in the wip-go-updates branch and
>> go-team Cuirass jobset.
> So the review happens first on the ML, then the changes land to the team
> branch, and then finally the feature branch gets merged to master?  If
> the review has already happened and the package been tested (and built
> by QA), why is a feature branch needed?

Because QA currently cannot process changes that cause more than 200 rebuilds.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]