[Pulp-dev] adding 2.16-beta branch to pulp repos
dkliban at redhat.com
Thu Jun 28 14:21:48 UTC 2018
Patrick and I spoke last Friday over IRC. He's convinced me that it's ok to
build the docs from a tag. We do not need to add any new branches.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 14:38 -0400, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> > I am working on building all of our Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 docs on Travis.
> The Pulp 2 docs will be built using cron jobs in Travis. Each cron job
> needs to be associated with a particular branch. This
> > means that we need to have a branch for every build we have out there.
> Currently we have following releases builds (and branches) out there: 2.17
> nightly (2-master), 2.16.2 beta (2.16-release),
> > 2.16.1 GA (only exists as a tag).
> > We should add a 2.16-beta branch to our repos. This branch would contain
> the latest beta. The 2.16-release branch would always contain the latest
> 2.16.z release.
> The 2.16.z release tags already contain the latest 2.16.z. It was decided
> as a strategic move to drop the x.y-dev branches during the transition to a
> cherrypick model, and as a matter of release
> process to always cherry-pick back our changes for the next release to the
> x.y-release branches. This is the process I'll continue to follow unless
> pulp decides to make a change to the release
> process outlined here: https://github.com/pulp/pups/
> > Would that work for the build team?
> If the pulp team feels the need to add additional branches to support pulp
> tooling and automation, the pulp team has the ability to add them in
> github. As long as it is spelled out clearly which
> branch to open cherry-pick PRs against and to build test builds off of;
> and a tag to build release builds off of; build team tooling is happy.
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev