search

UrbanOS-Examples / TechnicalWorkingGroup

4 stars 0 forks source link

suggestions for backporting #21

Open monicamcjunkin opened 5 years ago

monicamcjunkin commented 5 years ago

One of the processes we might like to cover in our final report, but we haven't touched up, is backporting fixes and updates back to an earlier version. Anyone want to chime in here?

@bilsch , @skpy , @nicetransition , @PhilNorman2 ??

bilsch commented 5 years ago

Yea this is something we had discussed at various points - iirc this was mostly on the weekly call and in the slack channel but never made it to the issues.

I feel like we should have a statement about upstream dependencies, staying current and handling scenarios where extensions to these dependencies are necessary.

I recall a discussion with @jdenen about this on a call - it may have been @rubberduck203 I don't remember 100%. The gist was that they already had a process for handling scenarios like this.

Does this warrant further discussion I'm happy to carry this forward though I'm not sure on timing for the report. We can probably have something ready and in a wiki document in advance of our final meeting Friday with recommendations on further discussion / refinement as the groups form.

rubberduck203 commented 5 years ago

@bilsch if it’s the conversation I remember, we were talking about updating the operating systems dependencies. There is a process around that now.

However, this sounds more like applying fixes to OSv10 to OSv9. If that’s the case, then I don’t know if there’s any plan. I would probably start with “Should we backport fixes” though.

bilsch commented 5 years ago

Thats a good point @rubberduck203. I believe the point was from old notes which related to my comment above but your point about decisions to bring fixes made to newer releases and backporting is another really great question. Would you view these as the same (github) issue or should we track them separately?

monicamcjunkin commented 5 years ago

We're finishing up our report this week. If we have suggestions for a process (and yes, I mean applying fixes from OSv10 back to OSv9), let's have them. Other option is we include backporting as a next step or open issue to be resolved. I think we'd rather do that than exclude it from the report entirely.

rubberduck203 commented 5 years ago

If it was me, I wouldn't worry about that until/unless the community shows a need for such a thing. If that time does come, I'd take a look at the way Linux has different groups supporting old versions. Basically, let whichever city who wants v10 patches in their v9 install do the backporting and support it.

jclarkpillar commented 5 years ago

Test comment, please ignore