It doesn't matter, we can rebase either way.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Ildar Absalyamov <[email protected]> wrote: > So In the meantime, what’s the proper way to pull the master in order to make > a code review? > >> On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:05, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is not a big deal. we can figure that out once a solution to the >> current issue is agreed on. >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate >>> this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review >>> actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop >>> of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them. >>> >>> -Ian >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's >>> comment, I >>>> am not sure that would be the way to go. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it >>>>> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes). >>>>> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch? >>>>> >>>>> -I an >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review >>> with >>>>>> this and submitted a new batch to the review. >>>>>> >>>>>> How should this be handled? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the >>>>>>> best plan as I see it: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The last commit we have in ASF master right now >>>>>>> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to >>>>>>> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message >>>>>>> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper >>>>>>> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the >>>>>>> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both >>>>>>> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and >>>>>>> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal >>>>>>> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the >>> incorrect >>>>>>> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's >>>>>>> master, is likely the least painful option. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled >>> c66d23a5 >>>>>>> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For >>>>>>> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once >>> the >>>>>>> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some >>>>>>> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last >>>>>>> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git >>>>>>> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's >>>>>>> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Jochen, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I >>> would >>>>>>>> say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which >>> was >>>>>>>> preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could >>>>>>>> directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through >>>>>>>> Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The >>> reason >>>>>>>> for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from >>> Gerrit, >>>>>>>> and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it >>> being >>>>>>>> a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like >>> working >>>>>>>> with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less >>>>>>>> error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one >>> can >>>>>>>> submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the >>> script >>>>>>>> wasn't used, not sure which). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Ian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, Ian, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are >>>>> currently >>>>>>>>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache >>>>>>>>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit >>> master >>>>>>>>> branch". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what >>> can >>>>>>>>> we do to fix that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jochen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>>> If you haven't pulled from >>>>>>>>>> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git >>>>>>>>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please >>> don't >>>>>>>>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for >>>>> submitting >>>>>>>>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got >>>>> committed >>>>>>>>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly >>> agree >>>>>>>>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at >>> the >>>>>>>>>> moment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse >>>>>>>>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , >>>>> please >>>>>>>>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you >>> have >>>>>>>>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to >>> force-push >>>>>>>>>> and overwrite the latest commit from. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> -Ian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare, >>>>>>>>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two >>>>> Three) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Amoudi, Abdullah. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Amoudi, Abdullah. > > Best regards, > Ildar >
