[cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers f rom continuous builds

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Thu Aug 29 16:22:11 PDT 2002


If I am correct, we actually have two lines of development, i.e. the
main build and the individual patch directories. And what I have heard
lately, they are not quite well on sync currently.

So what we need is some way to ensure, that when we do labeling (i.e.
tagging something CGLE 1.0), main line, the patches directory and
validation tests for code are in sync. If I heard you correctly, there
currently is no way to do that without manual checking?

--MiKu

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 16:01, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> Ok, I was just chatting with Tariq about how the build scripts work, and how
> big of a deal it would be to do what I am proposing.  As it ends up, there
> are no technical issues.  We can use the build system as it is currently
> designed, with milestone builds and all.  The only assumption that I am
> making that needs to be verified, is that we will only carry on a single
> line of development.  I personally do not think we need to deal with the
> headaches of multiple lines of development, but what does everyone else
> think.
> 
> 	-rusty
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shureih, Tariq 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:14 PM
> To: Lynch, Rusty
> Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> from continuous builds
> 
> 
> The way we do Milestone builds now is as follows:
> Continuous builds are constantly crunching as changes to CVS trigger them.
> The builds are identified by the Build Number on the build output page.
> The build directories underneath it all are identified by date/time of build
> and are stored up to the previous four (4) builds.
> When a milestone is scheduled, the integration process is:
> Seven days prior to the Milestone date, no new features are allowed to be
> checked in without review and approval (usually this is planned ahead of
> time).  The only check-ins allowed is fixes and updates to existing
> integrated features.
> Three days before the Milestone date, this is the Integration period where
> we maintain a stable build/tree and run the last well know good build
> through ABAT and Integration check -- which is basically a check for
> accuracy and installation/packaging.  However, carefully reviewed and
> approved changes are allowed to be integrated given they don't impact the
> stability of the Milestone.  If this condition is not met, the feature is
> pushed out to the next Milestone.
> 
> On the day of the Milestone we promote the build from "Dev" to "Stable" and
> announce the availability of the Milestone build to the validation and
> engineering teams for testing, etc.
> 
> So, to answer your question, the Milestone build is taken from the
> continuous builds.
> 
> --
> Tariq ¤
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynch, Rusty 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:29 AM
> To: Shureih, Tariq
> Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> from continuous builds
> 
> Tariq,
> The way things work now, don't you kick off a milestone builds independently
> from the continuous build?  Does what I have proposed mess up our current
> build system implementation for creating milestone builds, and having those
> milestone builds show up separately on the builds page?
> 
> 	-rusty
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephanie Glass [mailto:sglass at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Lynch, Rusty
> Cc: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'; cgl_discussion-admin at osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
> from continuous builds
> 
> 
> 
> Rusty,
> I don't know if we talked about milestone builds, but could your way also
> have milestone builds, such as on the 10/15 date when all code is initial
> all in?  Or would this just be under stable builds?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Stephanie
> 
> Linux Technology Center
>  IBM, 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX  78758
>  Phone: (512) 838-9284   T/L: 678-9284  Fax: (512) 838-3882
>  E-Mail: sglass at us.ibm.com
> 
> 
>  
> 
>                       "Lynch, Rusty"
> 
>                       <rusty.lynch at intel        To:
> "'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'" <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>        
>                       .com>                     cc:
> 
>                       Sent by:                  Subject:  [cgl_discussion]
> Proposal for disconnecting release numbers  
>                       cgl_discussion-adm         from continuous builds
> 
>                       in at osdl.org
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>                       08/29/2002 01:00
> 
>                       PM
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the continuous builds at
> http://tinderbox.developer.osdl.org/Builds/status.html or the packages that
> are the output of the build at http://builds.developer.osdl.org/index.php,
> the version of the build and the build number is called out.
> 
> For example, on 08-27-2002 at 14:34:39 there was a build that is titled
> "CGLE 1.0 - Build21".  Unless we plan on having multiple development
> threads
> for 1.X and 2.X implementations of the requirements, the concept of a
> version number doesn't mean anything in this scope.  The build is just
> building the latest code.  When the code will be considered ready for
> release and what name we want to attach to that code doesn't change the
> fact
> that this is just a build from the source tree at a given point in time.
> 
> I would like all of our continuous build output to be identified by just a
> build number and reference to when the build happened.  This would decouple
> the build process from debates on what the release name is.  For example,
> the title that you would see on http://builds.developer.osdl.org/index.php
> would change from  "CGLE 1.0 - Build 21 - 08-27-2002 14:34:39" to " CGLE
> Build 21 - 08-27-2002 14:34:39".  Maybe the bits will become eventually be
> released as CGLE 1.0 or CGLE 1.0.1 or who knows.  Why force the build
> system
> to understand our release naming convention?
> 
> BTW, the builds page could still have a "stable" and "development" section.
> 
>     -rusty
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list