Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
dev:merge_process [2008/06/19 04:45]
chamindra
dev:merge_process [2009/07/06 20:36] (current)
Line 9: Line 9:
   * Automated merging cannot be trusted especially with a large diff between the deployment branch and the trunk. Also the deployment branch might have customizations you do not want to see in the trunk. Thus the only option is manual merging.   * Automated merging cannot be trusted especially with a large diff between the deployment branch and the trunk. Also the deployment branch might have customizations you do not want to see in the trunk. Thus the only option is manual merging.
  
-Thus the only option we have is work with the delta we have between a +Thus the only option we have is work with the delta we have between a release/deployment branch.  
-release/deployment branch. I would like to suggest the following:+ 
 +===== High Level Approach =====
  
   * Use a visual merge tool (dedicated to the task of merging) to make it easier. I am using meld ( http://meld.sourceforge.net/ ).   * Use a visual merge tool (dedicated to the task of merging) to make it easier. I am using meld ( http://meld.sourceforge.net/ ).
Line 21: Line 22:
  
 The list of module and library owners and maintainers can be found [[dev:development_team | here]] The list of module and library owners and maintainers can be found [[dev:development_team | here]]
 +
  
 ===== Merge Process Kickoff Meeting ===== ===== Merge Process Kickoff Meeting =====
Line 32: Line 34:
   - Nominate point people and Sahana committers who will participate in the merge process   - Nominate point people and Sahana committers who will participate in the merge process
   - Define a brief schedule and milestones for the work   - Define a brief schedule and milestones for the work
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +===== Merge Process per Bug Fix / Enhancement =====
 +
 +__Have Ready__
 +
 +  * Identify the module/library owner and get in touch with them over email. You can find the list [[here]]
 +  * Checkout an updated version of the trunk
 +  * Have a merge tool handy to compare the difference between the trunk and you deployment code base
 +
 +__Process for Bugs__
 +  - Identify and isolate Bux Fix in code to merge using the merge tool
 +  - Create a patch for the bug fix
 +  - Register the bug fix in the tracker and attach the patch 
 +  - Module owner takes the patch, adds it to the trunk and tests it
 +  - Module owner approves the patch and closes it in the patch tracker
 +
 +__Process for Enhancements__
 +  - Document all the changes made to the module and send it to the module owner
 +  - Speak to module owner to identify which fixes in module are relevant
 +  - Create an entire module patch with only the fixes asked by module owner
 +  - Send the patch to the module maintainer
 +  - Module owner adds patch to the trunk, tests it and commits it.
 +
 +
 +===== Merge Process for Localization work ==
 +
 +  * PO file will be merged into Pootle
 +
 +===== Merge Process for GSoC project merges ==
 +
 +Fran: I must confess that I don't have any great technique here...it's basically a long, tedious process.
 +
 +I'd be very happy to hear from others as to better ways of doing this!
 +
 +I did the merge in stages:
 +  * Have copies of both Trunk & Branch accessible
 +  * Build a list of all files modified by the participants (by asking the participants & looking at CVS View - having a knowledge of the project helps here, of course)
 +  * Add in new files (can't break anything)
 +  * Do a diff of the modified files with the current version in trunk & review
 +  * If there are simply new functions, then add those (again, can't break anything)
 +  * If old functions are deprecated, then grep codebase to see where the function is used & hence other files which need modifying
 +  * If existing functions are modified, sanity check what's happening. - using Notepad++'s Compare plugin works well for assisting this.
 +  * Merge all co-dependent changed files together.
 +  * Tidy-up the code to meet Sahana formatting guidelines & spellchecks
 +  * Test
 +
 +NB I assume that 'Architectural fit' has been dealt with by the mentor(s)
 +  * not unnecessarily growing the stack of dependencies
 +  * any 3rd party code included is LGPL-compatible
 +  * using existing Sahana APIs rather than writing their own
 +
 +What I've not yet done, but should really happen is:
 +  * Form validation checks
 +  * Security checks
 +  * Performance optimisation checks
 +
 +
 +
 +

Navigation
QR Code
QR Code dev:merge_process (generated for current page)