| 23 May 2024 |
 Vladimír Čunát | Oh, looking at it, only the step (1) is missing, I think. | 14:40:20 |
 pbsds | it seems the release schedule does not detail when breaking changes are unrestricted on master. Should than be after branch-off, or after tagging the release? | 21:12:45 |
| pbsds | * it seems the release schedule does not detail when breaking changes are unrestricted on master. Should this be after branch-off, or after tagging the release? | 21:13:02 |
 raitobezarius | just after branch-off | 21:13:46 |
| raitobezarius | tagging the release happens on a parallel branch | 21:13:51 |
| pbsds | but this the week of backports. maintaining similarity between master and release-24.05 may be considered benefitial | 21:14:54 |
| pbsds | i commonly see comitters skip waiting for ofborg builds on backport during this week | 21:16:25 |
| pbsds | * i commonly see committers skip waiting for ofborg builds on backport during this week | 21:16:32 |
| pbsds | * i commonly see committers skip waiting for ofborg builds on backports during this week | 21:16:41 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @pederbs:pvv.ntnu.no
i commonly see committers skip waiting for ofborg builds on backports during this week ?????????? | 21:18:25 |
 Lily Foster | In reply to @pederbs:pvv.ntnu.no
but this the week of backports. maintaining similarity between master and release-24.05 may be considered benefitial similarity yeah. RMs can better say/change when breaking changes are unrestricted. it should probably be clarified in release wiki though (and posted schedules) | 21:18:26 |
| raitobezarius | skipping ofborg builds is not acceptable under any circumstance | 21:18:38 |
| Lily Foster | In reply to @pederbs:pvv.ntnu.no
i commonly see comitters skip waiting for ofborg builds on backport during this week (this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed then) | 21:18:39 |
| raitobezarius | a backport is already a quite involved action | 21:18:46 |
| raitobezarius | skipping their CI is really unacceptable without a proper provided rationale before the merge or something | 21:19:02 |
| Lily Foster | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
skipping ofborg builds is not acceptable under any circumstance (well skipping eval checks at least. builds can be separately verified) | 21:19:09 |
| Lily Foster | (which i wouldn't clarify except that the aarch64-darwin build queue exists......) | 21:19:31 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @pederbs:pvv.ntnu.no
but this the week of backports. maintaining similarity between master and release-24.05 may be considered benefitial i don't understand why this is the week of backports | 21:19:44 |
| raitobezarius | this is a bugfixing sequence at most | 21:19:50 |
| raitobezarius | not a "oops i missed the train, let me add my shit" sequence | 21:19:59 |
| Lily Foster | (yeah backports do continue for next 7 months too) | 21:20:05 |
| raitobezarius | so keeping similarity is not a goal afaik | 21:20:23 |
| raitobezarius | master should move on and do its things | 21:20:29 |
| raitobezarius | release-24.05 may continue to obtain some specific bugfixes during the beta phase as the testing uncovers some of them | 21:20:46 |
| raitobezarius | and manual conflict resolution can take place | 21:20:52 |
| pbsds | i looked through is:pull is:closed base:release-24.05, the ones i remember ofborg still building when merged have since completed. Quite a few PRs however never saw ofborg kick in | 21:27:36 |
| pbsds | This would've been solved by a merge wueue | 21:32:25 |
| pbsds | * This would've been solved by a merge queue | 21:32:26 |
| raitobezarius | Yeah but we don't have a merge queue and I don't think it's being worked on by anyone :) | 21:47:05 |
| 24 May 2024 |
 @jacg:matrix.org | Anyone care to offer editorial advice about the following entry in the release notes ? | 08:06:56 |
