How do we handle "Sync <branch> with Upstream <date>" automated PRs?

[samuel]

Good points @Agrendalath

I agree, but just wanted to note though that for security patches, we’d still need to cherry pick them to client branches that aren’t based on a branch that’s been patched upstream. The better we get with upstreaming, the smaller this effort would be though.

Do you feel this is strong enough to bring back the branch syncing? We already had consideration of this possibility:

@tikr

Let’s see how it goes – if we find that some sort of regular syncing is in fact necessary, we can revisit this conversation. (I agree that in that case it would make sense to formalize the process a bit more than it used to be, and to properly document whatever approach we’d settle on.)

I’d definitely be in favour now of bringing it back, as long as we formalise it more and include docs, as noted above. Now we have a pretty clear process for addressing Renovate/Dependabot PRs, and are expanding this reach, it should be pretty quick to extend this existing process.

What do you think @tikr ?

[tikr (Tim Krones)]

@samuel @Agrendalath Sounds good to me Whatever we can do to make the process for handling these security patches as quick and efficient as possible will be very welcome from the perspective of sustainability

[Agrendalath (Piotr Surowiec)]

@samuel,

@samuel

Do you feel this is strong enough to bring back the branch syncing? We already had consideration of this possibility:

Yep, I wouldn’t revive this thread otherwise.

@samuel

I’d definitely be in favour now of bringing it back, as long as we formalise it more and include docs, as noted above. Now we have a pretty clear process for addressing Renovate/Dependabot PRs, and are expanding this reach, it should be pretty quick to extend this existing process.

Would you mind reverting this PR first? Let’s keep only the Ulmo branch for openedx-platform for now. Unblocking security patches and reducing maintenance overhead should take priority over formalizing these processes, which can be handled in the upcoming sprints.

cc: @tikr

[samuel]

Thanks for confirming @Agrendalath , I’m on it. I’ll also think about where this could sit in the processes - I’m thinking this could be simply added to the scope of SE-6622.

[samuel]

@Agrendalath I opened PR open-craft/.github#9 for review. cc @tikr

[samuel]

@Agrendalath @tikr just closing the loop here: the branch syncing is reinstated, and I updated SE-6622 to include it in the scope.

We can start adding other branches if/when we need to.