From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C95DD2; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:47:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19E822908; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:47:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=DuLgYSWXjKtpEcZizyPvrIfoIj qqRC91O2vnIWG2DOU=; b=rgbllcmGHJvD4vNrzhXzTJvZn9Fpt8GYFZj7EltyFg rHaDpBkwzjb7gr9GH9RDwiGHScB2D181E5e7AF+wD+QWIhF7b9qUt+WLhqr3fq9l aOs0q53EmFxNYR/lZ4pHqk16Jnms9P8mEo20wJbO8uz4e79/I5+m8AxTVjaAKvNV c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=DuLgYS WXjKtpEcZizyPvrIfoIjqqRC91O2vnIWG2DOU=; b=h3rYjz50Ve5d6V6zpnYi/F x96hU3hD7sRChVpzyBsWJGBmgHV99fv1JkVxnNhTZ9nbJrfZBZTfq3rUo+29L+sK Yt1veFL1DTfXlAgElrPadalQWUGAtUS4T5nRxo5GklkNyQ4dTe88mF+x6jVWQwpT bcZeJZFEXEOGa5mbM6OOkf6FUUeSts/xkInRF+llJQKFjuElwYvf8yVHSCD4dzVB P8Jb6KOckHLZelvhRdYmmRQYVnGhis0UAzetWMX6xzqpGkmcjUoYVO48yPpgRq48 X54VSZG3FFW/IHcAxgW69OuADfBCSvJ+/tQW117OvyhHUdHfGTJxyEyEOkYAes4A == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6A91DE49E9; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:47:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Luca Boccassi , Ferruh Yigit , Kevin Traynor Cc: Aaron Conole , web@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org, yliu@fridaylinux.org, christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com, yskoh@mellanox.com Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:47:32 +0200 Message-ID: <1906771.vQqTW93QMP@xps> In-Reply-To: <1524650607.23292.6.camel@debian.org> References: <20180309133612.19927-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <71571fa0-f2c1-707a-235f-45ca938cc651@intel.com> <1524650607.23292.6.camel@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-web] [PATCH v2] update stable releases roadmap X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:47:36 -0000 25/04/2018 12:03, Luca Boccassi: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 09:33 +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 4/20/2018 4:52 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: > > > Kevin Traynor writes: > > > > On 04/18/2018 02:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 18/04/2018 14:28, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > > > On 4/18/2018 10:14 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > 18/04/2018 11:05, Ferruh Yigit: > > > > > > > > On 4/11/2018 12:28 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > > -

Typically a new stable release version > > > > > > > > > follows a mainline release > > > > > > > > > - by 1-2 weeks, depending on the test results. > > > > > > > > > +

The first stable release (.1) of a branch > > > > > > > > > should follow > > > > > > > > > + its mainline release (.0) by at least two > > > > > > > > > months, > > > > > > > > > + after the first release candidate (-rc1) of > > > > > > > > > the next branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What this change suggest? To be able to backport patches > > > > > > > > from rc1? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is the proposal we discussed earlier. > > > > > > > We can wait one week after RC1 to get some validation > > > > > > > confirmation. > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been discussed in tech-board, what I remember the > > > > > > decision was to wait > > > > > > the release to backport patches into stable tree. > > > > > > > > Any minutes? I couldn't find them > > > > > > > > > It was not so clear to me. > > > > > I thought post-rc1 was acceptable. The idea is to speed-up > > > > > stable releases > > > > > pace, especially first release of a series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think timing of stable releases and bugfix backports to the > > > > stable > > > > branch are two separate items. > > > > > > > > I do think that bugfix backports to stable should happen on a > > > > regular > > > > basis (e.g. every 2 weeks). Otherwise we are back to the > > > > situation where > > > > if there's a bugfix after a DPDK release, a user like (surprise, > > > > surprise) OVS may not be able to use that DPDK version for ~3 > > > > months. > > > > > > > > Someone who wants to get the latest bugfixes can just take the > > > > latest on > > > > the stable branch and importantly, can have confidence that the > > > > community has officially accepted those patches. If someone > > > > requires > > > > stable to be validated, then they have to wait until the release. > > > > > > +1 - this seems to make the most sense to me. Keep the patches > > > flowing, > > > but don't label/tag it until validation. That serves an additional > > > function: developers know their CC's to stable are being processed. > > > > Are stable trees verified? > > Verification is one issue - so far, Intel and ATT have provided time > and resources to do some regression tests, but only at release time > (before tagging). And it has been a manual process. > It would be great if more companies would step up to help - and even > better if regressions could be automated (nightly job?). > > The other issue is deciding when a patch is "good to go" - until now, > the criteria has been "when it's merged into master". > So either that criteria needs to change, and another equally > "authoritative" is decided on, or patches should get reviewed and > merged in master more often and more quickly :-P > > We also have not been looking directly at the the various -next trees, > as things are more "in-flux" there and could be reverted, or clash with > changes from other trees - hence why we merge from master. Yes, backporting from master is definitely the right thing to do. Backporting more regularly would be also an improvement. There will be always the question of the bug-free ideal in stable branches. I agree we need more help to validate the stable branches. But realistically, it will never be perfect. So the questions are: - What we must wait before pushing a backport in the stable tree? - What we must wait before tagging a stable release? I think it is reasonnable to push backports one or two weeks after it is in the master branch, assuming master is tested by the community. If a corner case is found later, it will be fixed with another patch. That's why it's important to wait a validation period (happening after each release candidate) before tagging a stable release. So, if we are aware of a regression in the master branch, which has been backported, we can wait few more days to fix it. The last thing we need to consider before tagging, is the validation of the stable release itself. Are we able to run some non-regression tests on the stable branch if it is ready few days after a RC1?