[cgl_discussion] Proposal for disconnecting release numbers f
rom continuous builds
tariq.shureih at intel.com
Thu Aug 29 15:13:50 PDT 2002
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
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
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
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?
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
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?
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
<rusty.lynch at intel To:
"'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'" <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>
Sent by: Subject: [cgl_discussion]
Proposal for disconnecting release numbers
cgl_discussion-adm from continuous builds
in at osdl.org
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
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
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
to understand our release naming convention?
BTW, the builds page could still have a "stable" and "development" section.
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion