Cool. I'm certain we're overlooking something but I'm too tired to think
of it today.
FYI once the copy is done you can tell Infra to change the default
branch for each repo on those and they will do so quickly, with no fuss.
-Joan
On 2020-09-10 4:13 p.m., Paul Davis wrote:
I should have noted, for each of the `apache/couchdb-$repo`
repositories my plan is to do a straight up copy of master -> main
with zero other changes. Once that's done we'll need to update
rebar.config.script but that should be all we need there.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:11 PM Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
So I've gotten `make check` passing against a merge of master into the
`prototype/fdb-layer` branch. I ended up finding a flaky test and a
bug in a recent commit to master. I've just merged a fix for the flaky
test and Bob is working on a patch for the buffered_response feature.
Once those are both merged I'll re-run the merge and name that branch `main`.
Once that happens we'll need to work through a to-do list. Things I
know that are on that list:
1. File infra ticket to have them change our GitHub setting for the
default branch to `main`.
2. Copy branch protection rules from `master` to `main`
3. Steps 1 and 2 for all our `apache/couchdb-$repo` repositories
4. Update Jenkins config
5. Figure out FreeBSD builder situation
6. Probably other stuff
7. Eventually rename current `master` to something else so as to avoid confusion
Assuming no one objects beforehand, I'll start the ball rolling with
Infra on Monday.
Paul
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote:
Have been asking for it for a while ;) obviously +1.
Be aware that Jenkinsfile.full post-merge will probably fail because, at
the very least, the FreeBSD hosts won't have fdb and can't run docker to
containerise it. This will need some exploration to resolve but
shouldn't be a blocker.
The Jenkins setup will also need slight changes when we rename branches.
Also keep in mind other repos need the branch renaming, too. ASF Infra
can do the GitHub dance to change the name of the main branch.
-Joan "about time" Touzet
On 2020-09-09 2:05 p.m., Robert Samuel Newson wrote:
Agree that its time to get the fdb-layer work into master, that's where couchdb
4.0 should be being created.
thanks for preserving the imported ebtree history.
On 9 Sep 2020, at 17:28, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
The merge on this turned out to be a lot more straightforward so I
think its probably the way to go. I've got a failing test in
couch_views_active_tasks_test but it appears to be flaky rather than a
merge error. I'll work though getting `make check` to complete and
then send another update.
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/tree/prototype/fdb-layer-final-merge
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/commit/873ccb4882f2e984c25f59ad0fd0a0677b9d4477
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:29 AM Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy folks!
I've just gone through a rebase of `prototype/fdb-layer` against
master. Its not quite finished because the ebtree import went wrong
during rebase due to a weirdness of the history.
I have a PR up for the rebase into master for people to look at [1].
Although the more important comparison is likely with the current
`prototype/fdb-layer` that can be found at [2].
Given the ebtree aspect, as well as the fact that I get labeled as the
committer for all commits when doing a rebase I'm also wondering if we
shouldn't turn this into a merge in this instance. I'll work up a
second branch that shows that diff as well that we could then rebase
onto master.
Regardless, I'd appreciate if we could get some eyeballs on the diff
and then finally merge this work to the default branch so its the main
line development going forward.
Paul
[1] https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/3137
[2]
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/compare/prototype/fdb-layer...prototype/fdb-layer-final-rebase
