Important: Katello: propose pushing 'engine' branch to 'master'

Development
1

Katello Developers,

After the engine -> devel rebase, we should all now be working out of
the engine branch.

Yesterday in our scrum, we discussed whether we should move the engine
branch to master. The general feedback was 'yes'.

In order to do this, we will probably have to:

  1. force push, the engine branch in to master

afterwards,
2. any open PR against master, will need to be updated to be based on
the new code in master (i.e. engine-base code)
3. any open PR against engine, will need to be updated to merge to 'master'

I assume that we want to do this sooner than later, so I propose that we
plan for this to occur first thing tomorrow morning (e.g. 8am EST).

Does the team agree with this approach/plan?
(Feel free to offer other suggestions, if there is a better one than
force pushing)

thanks,
Brad

2

Do it.

··· On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Brad Buckingham wrote:

Katello Developers,

After the engine -> devel rebase, we should all now be working out of the
engine branch.

Yesterday in our scrum, we discussed whether we should move the engine
branch to master. The general feedback was ‘yes’.

In order to do this, we will probably have to:

  1. force push, the engine branch in to master

afterwards,
2. any open PR against master, will need to be updated to be based on the
new code in master (i.e. engine-base code)
3. any open PR against engine, will need to be updated to merge to ‘master’

I assume that we want to do this sooner than later, so I propose that we
plan for this to occur first thing tomorrow morning (e.g. 8am EST).

Does the team agree with this approach/plan?
(Feel free to offer other suggestions, if there is a better one than force
pushing)

thanks,
Brad

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

3

Wouldn't merging engine back into master be easier as far as conflict resolution goes? Merging would also allow you to open a PR and for us to review/test before it goes back into master.

I personally like rebasing for local development or while in a feature branch but prefer merging the feature branch back into master when complete.

Either way, I'm definitely in favor of getting the engine branch back into master soon.

Cheers,
Walden

··· ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Buckingham" To: katello-devel@redhat.com, foreman-dev@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:31:07 AM Subject: [katello-devel] Important: Katello: propose pushing 'engine' branch to 'master'

Katello Developers,

After the engine -> devel rebase, we should all now be working out of
the engine branch.

Yesterday in our scrum, we discussed whether we should move the engine
branch to master. The general feedback was ‘yes’.

In order to do this, we will probably have to:

  1. force push, the engine branch in to master

afterwards,
2. any open PR against master, will need to be updated to be based on
the new code in master (i.e. engine-base code)
3. any open PR against engine, will need to be updated to merge to ‘master’

I assume that we want to do this sooner than later, so I propose that we
plan for this to occur first thing tomorrow morning (e.g. 8am EST).

Does the team agree with this approach/plan?
(Feel free to offer other suggestions, if there is a better one than
force pushing)

thanks,
Brad

katello-devel mailing list
katello-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel

4

I thought I heard that the katello engine would follow a model similar
to core which is

master == "last release"
develop == "next release"

Has that changed?

– bk

··· On 12/03/2013 10:24 AM, Walden Raines wrote: > Wouldn't merging engine back into master be easier as far as conflict resolution goes? Merging would also allow you to open a PR and for us to review/test before it goes back into master. > > I personally like rebasing for local development or while in a feature branch but prefer merging the feature branch back into master when complete. > > Either way, I'm definitely in favor of getting the engine branch back into master soon. > > Cheers, > Walden >
5

Walden,

I did a test to see if we could merge clean to master and we can.

So, I've created the following PR for the team to review and ack/nack:

thanks,
Brad

··· On 12/03/2013 10:24 AM, Walden Raines wrote: > Wouldn't merging engine back into master be easier as far as conflict resolution goes? Merging would also allow you to open a PR and for us to review/test before it goes back into master. > > I personally like rebasing for local development or while in a feature branch but prefer merging the feature branch back into master when complete. > > Either way, I'm definitely in favor of getting the engine branch back into master soon. > > Cheers, > Walden > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brad Buckingham" > To: katello-devel@redhat.com, foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:31:07 AM > Subject: [katello-devel] Important: Katello: propose pushing 'engine' branch to 'master' > > Katello Developers, > > After the engine -> devel rebase, we should all now be working out of > the engine branch. > > Yesterday in our scrum, we discussed whether we should move the engine > branch to master. The general feedback was 'yes'. > > In order to do this, we will probably have to: > > 1. force push, the engine branch in to master > > afterwards, > 2. any open PR against master, will need to be updated to be based on > the new code in master (i.e. engine-base code) > 3. any open PR against engine, will need to be updated to merge to 'master' > > I assume that we want to do this sooner than later, so I propose that we > plan for this to occur first thing tomorrow morning (e.g. 8am EST). > > Does the team agree with this approach/plan? > (Feel free to offer other suggestions, if there is a better one than > force pushing) > > thanks, > Brad > > _______________________________________________ > katello-devel mailing list > katello-devel@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
6

I'm not aware of a decision related to the above. That said, we did
discuss in katello scrum yesterday if the team would prefer to create a
'develop' branch; however, I came away with the following assumption:

master == 'code currently being worked on' (which nightly would be
generated from)
KATELLO-n.y == 'branch containing a given katello release' (e.g.
KATELLO-1.4)

If this is different from what folks have in mind, please do let me know.

thanks,
Brad

··· On 12/03/2013 11:16 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote: > On 12/03/2013 10:24 AM, Walden Raines wrote: >> Wouldn't merging engine back into master be easier as far as conflict >> resolution goes? Merging would also allow you to open a PR and for >> us to review/test before it goes back into master. >> >> I personally like rebasing for local development or while in a >> feature branch but prefer merging the feature branch back into master >> when complete. >> >> Either way, I'm definitely in favor of getting the engine branch back >> into master soon. >> >> Cheers, >> Walden >> > > I thought I heard that the katello engine would follow a model similar > to core which is > > master == "last release" > develop == "next release" > > Has that changed? > > -- bk > >
7

Katello Developers,

I have merged https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/3453 (i.e. engine
branch) to master. Thanks for looking it over.

At this point, all open and future PRs should be targeted for master and
NOT the engine branch.

thanks,
Brad

··· On 12/03/2013 01:57 PM, Brad Buckingham wrote: > Walden, > > I did a test to see if we could merge clean to master and we can. > > So, I've created the following PR for the team to review and ack/nack: > https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/3453 > > thanks, > Brad > > On 12/03/2013 10:24 AM, Walden Raines wrote: >> Wouldn't merging engine back into master be easier as far as conflict resolution goes? Merging would also allow you to open a PR and for us to review/test before it goes back into master. >> >> I personally like rebasing for local development or while in a feature branch but prefer merging the feature branch back into master when complete. >> >> Either way, I'm definitely in favor of getting the engine branch back into master soon. >> >> Cheers, >> Walden >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brad Buckingham" >> To:katello-devel@redhat.com,foreman-dev@googlegroups.com >> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:31:07 AM >> Subject: [katello-devel] Important: Katello: propose pushing 'engine' branch to 'master' >> >> Katello Developers, >> >> After the engine -> devel rebase, we should all now be working out of >> the engine branch. >> >> Yesterday in our scrum, we discussed whether we should move the engine >> branch to master. The general feedback was 'yes'. >> >> In order to do this, we will probably have to: >> >> 1. force push, the engine branch in to master >> >> afterwards, >> 2. any open PR against master, will need to be updated to be based on >> the new code in master (i.e. engine-base code) >> 3. any open PR against engine, will need to be updated to merge to 'master' >> >> I assume that we want to do this sooner than later, so I propose that we >> plan for this to occur first thing tomorrow morning (e.g. 8am EST). >> >> Does the team agree with this approach/plan? >> (Feel free to offer other suggestions, if there is a better one than >> force pushing) >> >> thanks, >> Brad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> katello-devel mailing list >> katello-devel@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel >
8

that was the agreed upon strategy, BK: adjust your perception to the
above :slight_smile:

··· On 12/03/2013 10:24 AM, Brad Buckingham wrote: > On 12/03/2013 11:16 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote: >> On 12/03/2013 10:24 AM, Walden Raines wrote: >>> Wouldn't merging engine back into master be easier as far as conflict >>> resolution goes? Merging would also allow you to open a PR and for >>> us to review/test before it goes back into master. >>> >>> I personally like rebasing for local development or while in a >>> feature branch but prefer merging the feature branch back into master >>> when complete. >>> >>> Either way, I'm definitely in favor of getting the engine branch back >>> into master soon. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Walden >>> >> >> I thought I heard that the katello engine would follow a model similar >> to core which is >> >> master == "last release" >> develop == "next release" >> >> Has that changed? >> >> -- bk >> >> > I'm not aware of a decision related to the above. That said, we did > discuss in katello scrum yesterday if the team would prefer to create a > 'develop' branch; however, I came away with the following assumption: > > master == 'code currently being worked on' (which nightly would be > generated from) > KATELLO-n.y == 'branch containing a given katello release' (e.g. > KATELLO-1.4) > > If this is different from what folks have in mind, please do let me know.

–
Mike McCune
mmccune AT redhat.com
Red Hat Engineering | Portland, OR
Systems Management | 650-254-4248

9

Within the next 30 mins or so, Jenkins should start testing only PRs
targeted for master.

··· On 04/12/13 14:30, Brad Buckingham wrote: > Katello Developers, > > I have merged https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/3453 (i.e. engine > branch) to master. Thanks for looking it over. > > At this point, all open and future PRs should be targeted for master and > NOT the engine branch.

–
Dominic Cleal
Red Hat Engineering