On 12/22/2017 12:36 PM, George Joseph wrote:
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corey Farrell <g...@cfware.com
<mailto:g...@cfware.com>> wrote:
On 12/22/2017 10:22 AM, George Joseph wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Corey Farrell <g...@cfware.com
<mailto:g...@cfware.com>> wrote:
George asked that I post some scenarios where this would be
useful.
1. You are about to create updated asterisk package and want
to quickly scan the changes to 13 since latest 13.x.0 release
to see if anything is a 'must patch' for your deployments.
You can use 'tig' to review changes for critical fixes until
you reach the tag '13.x.0-rc1' (which you can see in the list
because the tag was merged).
I didn't even know about tig. There's always something to learn
about the git ecosystem. :)
I know the end result can be accomplished by other means, but
not as easily.
2. You've created an automated test to try finding a
performance regression. The test runs asterisk under a
profiler and stores results. Each revision you test needs a
new file to store results - 'git describe' would provide an
excellent filename that is unique per revision.
One thing I'm not sure about is if we should only merge rc1
tags or if we should merge all new release tags. At first
all release tags seem reasonable, but the order of tags other
than rc1 would be off. rc1 is special because it would be
merged back to mainline before anything else. Even 13.x.0
does not get cut until after other commits are merged to 13,
so if we merged 13.19.0 to 13, the commits made since
13.19.0-rc1 would appear out of order (before 13.19.0). The
difference between rc1 and final release is always small, but
the number of new commits to mainline between that time can
be quite large.
So we would merge rc1's back to mainline but how about the point
releases?
13.19.0-rc1
13.19.1 ??
13.19.2 ??
13.18-cert1-rc1
13.18-cert2 ??
13.18-cert3 ??
Just to be clear certified branches would be untouched by this
proposal. Look at 'git log certified/13.13-cert9' - you will see
the previous tagged releases in the certified/13.13 release series.
I think we should not do anything different with the point
releases (including 13.19.0) because of the commit order. Think
about when 13.18.4 were released. If we merged it to 13 it would
be in the wrong place on 'git log 13'. Easily 200 non-merge
commits would appear after the 13.18.4 tag in the 13 branch, when
in fact they are not part of the 13.18.4 tag. My hope is that we
can provide additional information, but only if the information is
accurate.
Sorry, I'm being thick... So if it's only the rc1's then why won't an
annotated tag do what you want without having to alter the mainline
commit history with a merge?
The whole point is for an annotated tag to be in the mainline commit
history. This way when you do 'tig 15' it will show where each release
was split from mainline (the ones we merge in the future that is).
One last detail I don't know exactly how we deal with new major
releases (ie 16.0.0). If I remember correctly we will release
16.0.0-beta1, but I don't remember if that is the start of the
16.0 branch or if 16.0 starts with rc1. However it works my
current proposal would be to merge the first commit of 16.0 back
to 16.
we manually cut the 16 branch from master before anything then the
release process creates 16.0 when we release beta1.
In that case we would only merge 16.0.0-beta1 back to 16 (the split
point), we would not merge 16.0.0-rc1 since it would be behind 16 at the
time of creation.
Tzafrir I haven't heard from you since I joined your new thread.
If we were to merge the rc1's back to mainline so that mainline
knew about the "split point", would this satisfy your request?
Also was your intent to say "we should do this first before
deleting minor branches"? Do you object if we proceed with
removal of minor branches or does your request need to be
completed first?
On 12/21/2017 10:45 AM, Corey Farrell wrote:
I just read `git help merge` again and I think the solution
is 'git checkout 13 && git merge --strategy ours
13.19.0-rc1'. This would effectively tell git that '13'
already contains 13.19.0-rc1, but without actually trying to
pull any changes to 13. This merge would be the final step
of mkrelease.py.
No changes will be needed to our handling of '.lastclean',
please ignore those comments as I was wrong.
On 12/21/2017 08:19 AM, George Joseph wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Corey Farrell
<g...@cfware.com <mailto:g...@cfware.com>> wrote:
One thing that might improve this is if releases were
merged back to the major branch. Currently the commit
"Update for 13.19.0-rc1" is on the 13.19 branch and
tagged as 13.19.0-rc1. I believe that if we added 'git
checkout 13 && git merge 13.19.0-rc1' we would get
better information from 'git describe 13' and tags
would appear in 'git log 13 --oneline'. This would
continue working even after we delete the minor branches.
Sounds reasonable.
As a test I just ran 'git merge 13.18.4' from the
current 13 branch. The merge did have 2 conflicts but
that's because 13.18 was branched so long ago and a
couple files that were modified in minor releases have
since been modified again or deleted. Then I ran 'git
describe 13', it said '13.18.4-404-gd5d67bb1f4'. This
tells us that my local branch had about 404 commits
(including merges) that are not part of 13.18.0-rc1
(the point where 13.18 diverged from 13 because 13.18.3
was not merged back). Merging each tag as soon as it's
created would make the results more accurate. and
(almost always) eliminate merge conflicts.
"almost always" will be an issue since it's the scripts
that do the work. It's kinda frustrating already when
you're trying to get releases out the door and something
goes wrong with the script. What conditions do you think
might still cause merge conflicts?
The only wrinkle in this plan is that the '.lastclean'
file is created on the releases but it's listed in
.gitignore. I think we might be able to just get rid
of the .lastclean and .cleancount files. This Makefile
hack predates the use of SVN and I don't think it's
necessary. One thing it does do is try to enable the
astdb2sqlite3 utility, but Berkely DB was last used in
Asterisk 1.8. The default is for that utility to be
enabled, that's enough. In addition the mkrelease
script actually copies .cleancount to .lastclean, I
think that means it's disabled for releases.
These kind of things we can alter to suite our needs so
there shouldn't be an issue.
On 12/20/2017 12:58 PM, George Joseph wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
<tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
<mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:50:03AM -0700, George
Joseph wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
<tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
<mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Off-topic:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:50:03PM -0700,
George Joseph wrote:
> >
> > > Thankfully we tag EVERYTHING! :)
> >
> > asterisk(13)$ git describe
> > 13.15.0-rc1-908-ge31e3b581b
> >
> > asterisk(14)$ git describe
> > fatal: No tags can describe
'fb18797ae09a685ec71101499fb1c1c606b16397'.
> > Try --always, or create some tags.
> >
> > asterisk(15)$ git describe
> > fatal: No tags can describe
'd312068ee93ff8ce97b464f3c2ff3304e15cb3fe'.
> > Try --always, or create some tags.
> >
> >
> > I wasted half an hour yesterday trying to find
out why a build sis not
> > switch from master to 13, only to realize that
the name of the git
> > branch in the version string is always "master".
> >
> > We tag everything. But only well after it was
branched from the main
> >
> branch.
> >
>
> I'm not following you.
>
> We tag every release...
>
> $ git checkout 13.18.4
> HEAD is now at f4644317b7... Update for 13.18.4
> $ git describe
> 13.18.4
> $ git checkout 13.18
> Switched to branch '13.18'
> Your branch is up-to-date with 'gerrit/13.18'.
> $ git describe
> 13.18.4
> $
>
> We have to create the minor release branch
(13.18) and do the work there so
> that patch releases (13.18.4) are based on the
minor release branch, not
> the major branch.
Those branches are likewise short-lived branches
(at least with respect
to the number of commits). Real work is done on
master, 13, 15 and such.
But when I'm on such a branch, I can't ask git on
which branch I am (not
to mention: at which stage in it).
I _think_ I understand now.
For instance: maybe whenever you tag a new release
branch (e.g. 13.18),
tag the split point as something like "13.18.base"
or "base.13.18"?
Well, that's easy enough. Toss us an issue for it.
But maybe it's just me and branches 13 and 15 are
not widely used (for
master it is irrelevant anyway).
--
Tzafrir Cohen
+972-50-7952406
mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
<mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com>
http://www.xorcom.com
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
<http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
--
George Joseph
Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com
<http://www.digium.com/> & www.asterisk.org
<http://www.asterisk.org/>
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
<http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
--
George Joseph
Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com <http://www.digium.com/> &
www.asterisk.org <http://www.asterisk.org/>
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
<http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
--
George Joseph
Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com <http://www.digium.com/> &
www.asterisk.org <http://www.asterisk.org/>
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
<http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
--
George Joseph
Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com <http://www.digium.com/> &
www.asterisk.org <http://www.asterisk.org/>
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
