1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
|
=====================
Development workflows
=====================
This page explains the workflows a developer is expected to follow to
implement the goals that are part of the Ceph release cycle. It does not
go into technical details and is designed to provide a high level view
instead. Each chapter is about a given goal such as ``Merging bug
fixes or features`` or ``Publishing point releases and backporting``.
A key aspect of all workflows is that none of them blocks another. For
instance, a bug fix can be backported and merged to a stable branch
while the next point release is being published. For that specific
example to work, a branch should be created to avoid any
interference. In practice it is not necessary for Ceph because:
* there are few people involved
* the frequency of backports is not too high
* the reviewers, who know a release is being published, are unlikely
to merge anything that may cause issues
This ad-hoc approach implies the workflows are changed on a regular
basis to adapt. For instance, ``quality engineers`` were not involved
in the workflow to publish ``dumpling`` point releases. The number of
commits being backported to ``firefly`` made it impractical for developers
tasked to write code or fix bugs to also run and verify the full suite
of integration tests. Inserting ``quality engineers`` makes it
possible for someone to participate in the workflow by analyzing test
results.
The workflows are not enforced when they impose an overhead that does
not make sense. For instance, if the release notes for a point release
were not written prior to checking all integration tests, they can be
committed to the stable branch and the result sent for publication
without going through another run of integration tests.
Release Cycle
=============
::
Ceph hammer infernalis
Developer CDS CDS
Summit | |
| |
development | |
release | v0.88 v0.89 v0.90 ... | v9.0.0
--v--^----^--v---^------^--v- ---v----^----^--- 2015
| | | |
stable giant | | hammer
release v0.87 | | v0.94
| |
point firefly dumpling
release v0.80.8 v0.67.12
Four times a year, the development roadmap is discussed online during
the `Ceph Developer Summit <http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Planning#Ceph-Developer-Summit>`_. A
new stable release (hammer, infernalis, jewel ...) is published at the same
frequency. Every other release (firefly, hammer, jewel...) is a `Long Term
Stable (LTS) <../../releases>`_. See `Understanding the release cycle
<../../releases#understanding-the-release-cycle>`_ for more information.
Merging bug fixes or features
=============================
The development branch is ``master`` and the workflow followed by all
developers can be summarized as follows:
* The developer prepares a series of commits
* The developer submits the series of commits via a pull request
* A reviewer is assigned the pull request
* When the pull request looks good to the reviewer, it is merged into
an integration branch by the tester
* After a successful run of integration tests, the pull request is
merged by the tester
The ``developer`` is the author of a series of commits. The
``reviewer`` is responsible for providing feedback to the developer on
a regular basis and the developer is invited to ping the reviewer if
nothing happened after a week. After the ``reviewer`` is satisfied
with the pull request, (s)he passes it to the ``tester``. The
``tester`` is responsible for running teuthology integration tests on
the pull request. If nothing happens within a month the ``reviewer`` is
invited to ping the ``tester``.
Resolving bug reports and implementing features
===============================================
All bug reports and feature requests are in the `issue tracker
<http://tracker.ceph.com>`_ and the workflow can be summarized as
follows:
* The reporter creates the issue with priority ``Normal``
* A developer may pick the issue right away
* During a bi-weekly bug scrub, the team goes over all new issue and
assign them a priority
* The bugs with higher priority are worked on first
Each ``team`` is responsible for a project, managed by :ref:`leads <governance>`.
The ``developer`` assigned to an issue is responsible for it. The
status of an open issue can be:
* ``New``: it is unclear if the issue needs work.
* ``Verified``: the bug can be reproduced or showed up multiple times
* ``In Progress``: the developer is working on it this week
* ``Pending Backport``: the fix needs to be backported to the stable
releases listed in the backport field
For each ``Pending Backport`` issue, there exists at least one issue
in the ``Backport`` tracker to record the work done to cherry pick the
necessary commits from the master branch to the target stable branch.
See `the backporter manual
<http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO>`_ for more
information.
Running and interpreting teuthology integration tests
=====================================================
The :doc:`/dev/sepia` runs `teuthology
<https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/>`_ integration tests `on a regular basis <http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_monitor_the_automated_tests_AKA_nightlies#Automated-tests-AKA-nightlies>`_ and the
results are posted on `pulpito <http://pulpito.ceph.com/>`_ and the
`ceph-qa mailing list <https://ceph.com/irc/>`_.
* The job failures are `analyzed by quality engineers and developers
<http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO_monitor_the_automated_tests_AKA_nightlies#List-of-suites-and-watchers>`_
* If the cause is environmental (e.g. network connectivity), an issue
is created in the `sepia lab project
<http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/lab/issues/new>`_
* If the bug is known, a pulpito URL to the failed job is added to the issue
* If the bug is new, an issue is created
The ``quality engineer`` is either a developer or a member of the QE
team. There is at least one integration test suite per project:
* `rgw <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/suites/rgw>`_ suite
* `CephFS <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/suites/fs>`_ suite
* `rados <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/suites/rados>`_ suite
* `rbd <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/suites/rbd>`_ suite
and many others such as
* `upgrade <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/suites/upgrade>`_ suites
* `power-cyle <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/qa/suites/powercycle>`_ suite
* ...
Preparing a new release
=======================
A release is prepared in a dedicated branch, different from the
``master`` branch.
* For a stable releases it is the branch matching the release code
name (dumpling, firefly, etc.)
* For a development release it is the ``next`` branch
The workflow expected of all developers to stabilize the release
candidate is the same as the normal development workflow with the
following differences:
* The pull requests must target the stable branch or next instead of
master
* The reviewer rejects pull requests that are not bug fixes
* The ``Backport`` issues matching a teuthology test failure and set
with priority ``Urgent`` must be fixed before the release
Cutting a new stable release
============================
A new stable release can be cut when:
* all ``Backport`` issues with priority ``Urgent`` are fixed
* integration and upgrade tests run successfully
Publishing a new stable release implies a risk of regression or
discovering new bugs during the upgrade, no matter how carefully it is
tested. The decision to cut a release must take this into account: it
may not be wise to publish a stable release that only fixes a few
minor bugs. For instance if only one commit has been backported to a
stable release that is not a LTS, it is better to wait until there are
more.
When a stable release is to be retired, it may be safer to
recommend an upgrade to the next LTS release instead of
proposing a new point release to fix a problem. For instance, the
``dumpling`` v0.67.11 release has bugs related to backfilling which have
been fixed in ``firefly`` v0.80.x. A backport fixing these backfilling
bugs has been tested in the draft point release ``dumpling`` v0.67.12 but
they are large enough to introduce a risk of regression. As ``dumpling``
is to be retired, users suffering from this bug can
upgrade to ``firefly`` to fix it. Unless users manifest themselves and ask
for ``dumpling`` v0.67.12, this draft release may never be published.
* The ``Ceph lead`` decides a new stable release must be published
* The ``release master`` gets approval from all leads
* The ``release master`` writes and commits the release notes
* The ``release master`` informs the ``quality engineer`` that the
branch is ready for testing
* The ``quality engineer`` runs additional integration tests
* If the ``quality engineer`` discovers new bugs that require an
``Urgent Backport``, the release goes back to being prepared, it
was not ready after all
* The ``quality engineer`` informs the ``publisher`` that the branch
is ready for release
* The ``publisher`` `creates the packages and sets the release tag
<../release-process>`_
The person responsible for each role is:
* Sage Weil is the ``Ceph lead``
* Sage Weil is the ``release master`` for major stable releases
(``firefly`` 0.80, ``hammer`` 0.94 etc.)
* Loic Dachary is the ``release master`` for stable point releases
(``firefly`` 0.80.10, ``hammer`` 0.94.1 etc.)
* Yuri Weinstein is the ``quality engineer``
* Alfredo Deza is the ``publisher``
Cutting a new development release
=================================
The publication workflow of a development release is the same as
preparing a new release and cutting it, with the following
differences:
* The ``next`` branch is reset to the tip of ``master`` after
publication
* The ``quality engineer`` is not required to run additional tests,
the ``release master`` directly informs the ``publisher`` that the
release is ready to be published.
Publishing point releases and backporting
=========================================
The publication workflow of the point releases is the same as
preparing a new release and cutting it, with the following
differences:
* The ``backport`` field of each issue contains the code name of the
stable release
* There is exactly one issue in the ``Backport`` tracker for each
stable release to which the issue is backported
* All commits are cherry-picked with ``git cherry-pick -x`` to
reference the original commit
See `the backporter manual
<http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO>`_ for more
information.
|
