On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Sam Schmit <sam.sch...@appcore.com> wrote:
> Hey everyone, > > I've been a developer for a handful of years and have had my share of > experience with different version control systems. I've used (for better > or worse) Git, Perforce, Rational ClearCast, and SVN. > > Each of these solutions offers their own unique set of features, strengths > and weaknesses. As there are so many systems that are good at specific > things, it seems best to use the features that the chosen system is best at. > > Git is great at branching, merging and using that structure to maintain and > control how changes get into the primary branches. Git tools even make > this easy by integrating directly into the "Gitflow" to make branching and > merging that much easier. It would seem counter-intuitive to NOT make use > of these built-in capabilities. > > In addition to that, I know that the current method of change management is > incredibly frustrating to work with, and works directly against the way a > typical Git user would expect it to be structured. I should NEVER have > problem compiling and running something on master. I should not have > problems building anything on a release branch. A feature/bugfix branch is > where things can be, and often are, broken or unstable. There have been > many times working in Cloudstack where I've had to search for a stable > revision on master, and that's just plain wrong. > > I do realize that having this many developers working on so many features > and bugfixes will result in a large number of branches. I don't believe > this is a good argument against using a branching method, though - I > believe that the current system is even more confusing and difficult to use. > > I could pontificate on change management quite a bit more, but my opinion > in summary would basically be: use Git the way it was meant to be used, > and things will be better. Just my two cents. > > Sam > > Sam, I think we are in agreement (at least with folks who responded to this thread). Or maybe I am not reading your mail right and you don't agree with Leo ? My own take and reason for calling for a change we are currently doing things is mostly due to the way we release. I would like to see a stable master (and I think we are in agreement with that). That means that development should not happen on master and that every commit that lands on master should be shippable. I personally have no issues with cherry-picking. So I would be fine cherry picking from a hot-fix branch into master, to fix a bug. The end result is that the next commit on master would still mean master is shippable/releasable. If we agree with this basic concept. The question becomes how do we get there, considering that master is now full of dev work and potential bug. The only releasable product we have are on the 4.3, 4.4 and previous release branches. Ideally, I would like to see master becomes 4.4. And work our way back, merging the new features that are already in master into the new master (based on 4.4). This could be quite complicated but we need to do it (or something like it). To move forward, we should make a proposal to the list and call for a vote. Any takers to start a wiki page proposing a new git process and how we could move to it (transition path) ? -Sebastien > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Leo Simons <lsim...@schubergphilis.com> > wrote: > >> Hey folks, >> >> With 4.4.0 tagged, is now an opportune time to go and implement this? >> >> I would enthousiastically +1 and get crackin', but I’m not a committer so >> its not that practical for me to volunteer! >> >> I wanted to point out atlassian’s description of gitflow >> >> https://www.atlassian.com/git/workflows#!workflow-gitflow >> >> which might be easier to read. >> >> Similarly, the git-flow scripts that help out with implementing this stuff >> >> https://github.com/nvie/gitflow >> >> they also describe the relationship between gitflow and dealing with >> multiple remotes >> >> https://www.atlassian.com/git/workflows#!pull-request >> >> Finally note atlassian’s free sourcetree GUI has built-in support for >> git-flow >> >> http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ >> >> Because cloudstack currently is full of rebasing and squashing and >> cherry-picking, you get very little benefit from a tree visualization tool >> (like this or gitk or ...) right now, but it would be *great* to have going >> forward. >> >> >> cheers, >> >> >> Leo >> >> On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would like to re-start this discussion. >>> >>> Rajani made some good points and someone mentioned Gitflow: >>> >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>> >>> Thinking about our release procedure, we clearly need more tests and a >> CI. However it looks like this is going to take some time. >>> >>> In the meantime I think there is nothing preventing us from agreeing to >> 'git practices', we don't need tests or new infra, we just need to agree on >> the git workflow. >>> >>> Right now Master is really a development branch, we should make it a >> stable branch for production with very few commits. >>> This does not mean that we would release less, in contrary this would >> ensure that a commit to master means it's a production release. >>> >>> In addition gitflow [1] does not do cherry-picks (gets back to Rajani's >> point) everything is based on merges. >>> >>> I am of the opinion that git flow provides a nice process. It basically >> freezes master. Development happens in a 'develop' branch, releases >> branches are branched off of that and merged into master and back into >> develop….etc >>> >>> Please read [1] it's a good read. >>> >>> And let's discuss, >>> >>> [1] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>> >>> -Sebastien >>> >>> On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:58 PM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani.karut...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> There is also the problem of cherry-picking. >>>> As a contributor, I always endup creating multiple patches for each >> branch as they don’t cleanly apply on the upward branches. which means >> distinct commits for each branch and I don’t easily know which all branches >> my commit exists unless I do grep. >>>> if we follow merging strategy properly, apart from the first merge of >> the branch, everything else on top of it should be a painless merge. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ~Rajani >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02-Jun-2014, at 10:51 pm, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think many of the bullet points are what we are currently doing >>>>> (guidelines for commit comments, feature branches need to stay in sync >> with >>>>> master, no back-merging). I also think that much of what we do now is >> done >>>>> the way it is simply because there *are* vast changes between versions. >>>>> Classes are getting shuffled around and changed all the time. If its >>>>> feasible to merge branch fixes to master, that's fine, but some quick >> tests >>>>> seem to indicate that this will be messy getting started. >>>>> >>>>> That leaves us with how we do releases. I'm fine with having single >>>>> branches for major releases(4.3) and tagging the commits where each >>>>> incremental release (4.3.x) is done. I'm trying to remember why we went >>>>> with the -forward, I'm sure it's in the mailing list somewhere, but >> one of >>>>> the nice things it provides is the ability for the release manager to >>>>> control what changes are made during code freeze while giving people a >>>>> place to stage fixes (though admittedly this is not always followed). >>>>> Without -forward, would the flow be for each dev to have their own >> repo and >>>>> issue pull requests for bugfixes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Rajani Karuturi < >> rajani.karut...@citrix.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Any other suggestions/objections/comments?? >>>>>> Can we discuss this in detail and agree to a process?? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Rajani >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 02-Jun-2014, at 9:32 am, Rajani Karuturi < >> rajani.karut...@citrix.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes as mike said, if its a one-off case we can do a empty >> merge(merge -s >>>>>> ours) for it and git will assume its merged but will not bring in any >>>>>> changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the branches diverged a lot, for example after a major rewrite, we >>>>>> could stop merging to that branch and above and make the fix manually. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~Rajani >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30-May-2014, at 11:26 pm, Mike Tutkowski < >>>>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yep, that's what I was referring to in that a particular fix for an >> old >>>>>>>> release may not apply to newer versions. That does happen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We used to mark those as "don't need to merge to branch x" in SVN >> and >>>>>> then >>>>>>>> you handed it however made sense on the applicable branch(es). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Stephen Turner < >>>>>> stephen.tur...@citrix.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What happens if a fix isn't relevant for newer versions, or has to >> be >>>>>>>>> rewritten for newer versions because the code has changed? Don't >> the >>>>>>>>> branches diverge and you end up cherry-picking after that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Stephen Turner >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 May 2014 18:48 >>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] git workflow >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this flow is something we should seriously consider. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I find cherry picking from branch to branch to be error prone in >> that >>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>> easy for someone to forget to cherry pick to all applicable >> branches >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> you don't have any easy way to see the cherry picks are related. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I worked at HP, we had automated tools check to see if you >>>>>> checked a >>>>>>>>> fix into a prior release, but not later releases. In such a >> situation, >>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> either 1) forgot to perform the check-in or 2) the check-in was no >>>>>> longer >>>>>>>>> applicable in the later release(s), so you needed to mark it as >>>>>>>>> un-necessary (SVN supported this ability...not sure about Git). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Rajani Karuturi < >>>>>>>>> rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Our current git workflow is confusing with the *forward branches >> and >>>>>>>>>> cherry-picking. Its hard to track on what all releases the commit >> has >>>>>>>>>> gone into unless I do some git log greping. Also, as a >> contributor, I >>>>>>>>>> endup creating patches for each branch as it doesn’t cleanly >> apply on >>>>>>>>>> different branches. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we should have some guidelines. Here is what I propose. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. There should be branch for every major release(ex: 4.3.x, >> 4.4.x, >>>>>>>>>> 5.0.x,5.1.x) and the minor releases should be tagged accordingly >> on >>>>>>>>>> the respective branches. >>>>>>>>>> 2. The branch naming convention is to be followed. Many branches >>>>>>>>>> with 4.3, 4.3.0, 4.3.1 etc. is confusing >>>>>>>>>> 3. Cherry-picking should be avoided. In git, when we cherry-pick, >>>>>>>>>> we have two physically distinct commits for the same change or >> fix and >>>>>>>>>> is difficult to track unless you do cherry-pick -x >>>>>>>>>> 4. There should always be a continous flow from release branches >> to >>>>>>>>>> master. This doesn’t mean cherry-picking. They should be >> merged(either >>>>>>>>>> ff or no-ff) which retains the commit ids and easily trackable >> with >>>>>>>>>> git branch --contains >>>>>>>>>> * Every bug fix should always flow from minimal release uptill >>>>>>>>>> master. A bug isnt fixed until the fix reaches master. >>>>>>>>>> * For ex. A bug 4.2.1 should be committed to >>>>>>>>>> 4.2.x->4.3.x->4.4.x->master >>>>>>>>>> * If someone forgets to do the merge, the next time a new commit >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> done this will also get merged. >>>>>>>>>> 5. There should always be a continuous flow from master to >> feature >>>>>>>>>> branches. Meaning all feature branch owners should proactively >> take >>>>>>>>>> any new commits from master by doing a merge from master >>>>>>>>>> 6. The commits from feature branch will make to master on code >>>>>>>>>> complete through a merge. >>>>>>>>>> 7. There should never be a merge from master to release branches >>>>>>>>>> 8. Every commit in LTS branch(targetted to any minor release) >>>>>>>>>> should have atleast bug id and correct author information >>>>>>>>>> * Cassandra's template: patch by <author>; reviewed by >>>>>> <committer> >>>>>>>>>> for CASSANDRA-<ticket> >>>>>>>>>> 9. Once the release branch is created(after code freeze), any bug >>>>>>>>>> in jira can be marked with fix version current release(4.4) only >> on >>>>>>>>>> RM's approval and only they can go to the release branch. This >> can be >>>>>>>>>> done through jira and with certain rules.(may be using jira vote?) >>>>>>>>>> this would save the cherry-picking time and another branch >>>>>> maintenance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please add your thoughts/suggestions/comments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ref: >>>>>>>>>> >> http://www.draconianoverlord.com/2013/09/07/no-cherry-picking.html >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ-CpGsCpM0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ~Rajani >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski* >>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302 >>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud >>>>>>>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski* >>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302 >>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud >>>>>>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
