Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

merge csiv1.0 branch to master #297

Merged
merged 285 commits into from
Apr 3, 2019
Merged

merge csiv1.0 branch to master #297

merged 285 commits into from
Apr 3, 2019

Conversation

Madhu-1
Copy link
Collaborator

@Madhu-1 Madhu-1 commented Apr 2, 2019

No description provided.

mickymiek and others added 30 commits January 14, 2019 20:15
Signed-off-by: Peter Nordquist <peter.nordquist@pnnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Huamin Chen <hchen@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Huamin Chen <hchen@redhat.com>
…not hosted in quay.io

Signed-off-by: Huamin Chen <hchen@redhat.com>
Merge master to csi-v1.0 branch
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Madhu Rajanna <mrajanna@redhat.com>
…ock volume provisioning

Signed-off-by: Huamin Chen <hchen@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Huamin Chen <hchen@redhat.com>
…n get latest mons and override old ones

Signed-off-by: Huamin Chen <hchen@redhat.com>
@Madhu-1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Madhu-1 commented Apr 2, 2019

@rootfs @ShyamsundarR @gman0 @j-griffith @humblec PTAL,

This PR makes csiv1.0 branch as master with preserving git history from csiv1.0 branch

@Madhu-1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Madhu-1 commented Apr 2, 2019

updates issue #266

@humblec
Copy link
Collaborator

humblec commented Apr 2, 2019

@Madhu-1 will be on this soon.

@ShyamsundarR
Copy link
Contributor

An clarification question, instead of the merge can we not delete and rename csi-v1.0 branch as the master? Or, do we intend to leave the csi-v1.0 branch as is and never delete that branch?

@Madhu-1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Madhu-1 commented Apr 2, 2019

An clarification question, instead of the merge can we not delete and rename csi-v1.0 branch as the master? Or, do we intend to leave the csi-v1.0 branch as is and never delete that branch?

@ShyamsundarR I thought of doing only if I face any issue in merging csi-v1.0 into master and also I felt deleting a branch is kind of risky for me.

so the current plan is to merge the csi-v1.0 changes to the master and delete csi-v1.0 branch(make master as the default branch) any comments on this approach?

@humblec
Copy link
Collaborator

humblec commented Apr 2, 2019

One option would be, branchoff from current v1.0 branch and create v1.0-backup. Then delete and rename v1.0 as the master. Then rename v1.0-backup to v1.0. No PR Merges in between this process. I think that would be better than merging .

Any thoughts @gman0 @ShyamsundarR @j-griffith @Madhu-1 ?

@Madhu-1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Madhu-1 commented Apr 2, 2019

One option would be, branchoff from current v1.0 branch and create v1.0-backup. Then delete and rename v1.0 as the master. Then rename v1.0-backup to v1.0. No PR Merges in between this process. I think that would be better than merging .

Any thoughts @gman0 @ShyamsundarR @j-griffith @Madhu-1 ?

whats the intention of keeping v1.0 branch? are we going to merge PR to csiv1.0 branch and do a release from it?

if we come to an agreement soon enough so that we can have a master branch with v1.0.0.

@ShyamsundarR
Copy link
Contributor

Just checked a branch diff between this PR and csi-v1.0 branch it is clean. I would vote to not prolong this, by taking other alternatives (like delete/rename), as the bulk of the work is done. I cannot say if commits will bisect well or not (I think our merge strategy also defeats the bisection unless PR owners ensure their commits are bisect-able (individually work)).

I was more curious as to why this option/route was taken to ensure we have master caught up with the current 1.0 branch.

BUT, I do want to discuss what we do with csi-v1.0 branch post this merge, IMO,

  • We need to delete csi-v1.0 branch, till we are ready to make a 1.0 release from the master branch
  • Start releasing 'canary' images for every PR merge from master as 1.0 till we are ready branch and release 1.0

Copy link
Contributor

@j-griffith j-griffith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice work @Madhu-1

@humblec
Copy link
Collaborator

humblec commented Apr 2, 2019

lgtm.
@gman0 can you take a look at this PR and do the needful ? :)

@Madhu-1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Madhu-1 commented Apr 3, 2019

@gman0 @rootfs can we merge this one on top priority?

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 426bf67 into ceph:master Apr 3, 2019
wilmardo pushed a commit to wilmardo/ceph-csi that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2019
merge csiv1.0 branch to master
Madhu-1 pushed a commit to Madhu-1/ceph-csi that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2024
Syncing latest changes from upstream devel for ceph-csi
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.