Date
1 - 2 of 2
[EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC V2] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
“I agree with Liming that stable branches should have a predefined
lifetime. Keeping stable branches regression-free is very difficult and ungrateful work, and the community should not have expectations that we're going to do "LTS" branches.” Seconded. We actually had to update our release process with this blurb recently: https://microsoft.github.io/mu/How/release_process/#post-lts-and-archiving - Bret From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@...> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:50 AM To: Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; gaoliming@...<mailto:gaoliming@...>; Andrew Fish (afish@...)<mailto:afish@...>; Leif Lindholm<mailto:leif@...>; Sean Brogan<mailto:sean.brogan@...>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC V2] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111) On 12/16/20 01:24, Kinney, Michael D wrote: Hello,- Looks good; just a typo in the example: "edk2-stable201111.01" should use 2020, not 2011. - I agree with Liming that stable branches should have a predefined lifetime. Keeping stable branches regression-free is very difficult and ungrateful work, and the community should not have expectations that we're going to do "LTS" branches. That's too resource hungry; companies have dedicated "maintenance engineer" positions for that. Here's an example stable process: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.qemu.org%2F%3Fp%3Dqemu.git%3Ba%3Dblob_plain%3Bf%3Ddocs%2Fdevel%2Fstable-process.rst%3Bhb%3DHEAD&;data=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C092cd97468a645f68e4308d8a292a636%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637438098026656126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bOmSbEHuU%2BqLr3mdmhP%2Foq%2BR7yy%2BVNUWbG367yhFwQE%3D&reserved=0 I would recommend that, initially, we only promise support for the last stable tag's branch. - Including a unit test (if it exists) with the actual bugfix on a stable branch seems important to me. Thanks Laszlo |
|
|
|
Michael D Kinney
I agree that the default policy is to only support a branch until the next
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
stable tag. My comments were only to address the potential for a request after that defined support timeline. If a portion of the community wants to do the work required to support past that point, then I doubt we would reject the idea. I will only document the default policy. Anything past that would have to be raised as a new request. Mike -----Original Message----- |
|
|