Re: Branch and release process (was: gnu: inetutils: Update to 2.4.)

["Leo Famulari" <leo@famulari.name>]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023, at 23:30, 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?

Because QA currently cannot process changes that cause more than 200 rebuilds.