Re: Branch and release process

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Efraim,

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:30:52PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 09:10:33PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> >> Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> 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:
>> >
>> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-02/msg00066.html
>> 
>> 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?
>
> So we can group a couple of larger related changes together.

I see; so it'd be useful for the integration of package changes
impacting multiple others; some kind of staging or core-updates
topic-focused branches.  Simple leaf package updates could still be
merged directly to master without going through the go-team branch,
right?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim