On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012 3:44 PM, "Rob Lanphier"
<robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Another possible plan would be to have something
*somewhat* closer to
what we have today, with new branches off of trunk for each
deployment, and deployments happening as frequently as weekly.
master
├── 1.20wmf01
├── 1.20wmf02
├── 1.20wmf03
...
├── 1.20wmf11
├── 1.20wmf12
├── REL1_20
├── 1.21wmf01
├── 1.21wmf02
├── 1.21wmf03
...
This is how I was envisioning the process working, and just didn't get
a chance to sync up with Chad to find out what the issues of this
approach would be.
This seems like the best approach to me, because it meshes with het deploy
better, as described by others on this thread. However, I'd recommend using
a naming convention with a prefix, e.g. wmf/1.20/01 , so we can handle
permissions on these deployment branches in a managable way.
*nod* Makes sense. And Rob and I totally agree actually with how we
should be handling deployments. We should branch from master liberally
and often. When it comes time to do an actual scap, you should also
tag your release so we have a clearly repeatable state if we need to
roll-back or figure out what broke.
Ideally, scap would become something like:
`mw-deploy <tag> <wiki1,wiki2>`
-Chad