Replied, but would be good for others to take a peak at this thread as I am not 100% sure that my answers are correct..
On 6/12/13 1:18 PM, "Benn Mapes" <benn.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >What are we doing about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6302? > >I think they're afraid of messing things up for us. Does someone want to >answer his questions? (I'm not sure what the correct approach is...) > > >On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Braden Shepherdson ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > >> Let's see how quickly they react to the new ticket. >> >> Braden >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> > My intuition is we'll need to bump the infra guys on irc.. >> > >> > On 6/10/13 1:16 PM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > >> > >Since it's been nearly two weeks with no movement despite a bump, >>I've >> > >closed the old INFRA ticket and opened a new one[1] stating that we >> intend >> > >to move forward with option 2. >> > > >> > >Braden >> > > >> > >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6374 >> > > >> > > >> > >On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Braden Shepherdson >> > ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: >> > > >> > >> Waiting on INFRA. I've already told them that we want to go with 2. >> > >> >> > >> Braden >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> I'm fine with option 2, lets get this done. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> > SGTM >> > >>> > >> > >>> > On 6/4/13 10:44 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> >> > wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >I did some experimenting on my local disk to see what would >>happen >> > >>>if >> > >>> we >> > >>> > >did go with option 2. It's pretty sane and safe: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >- If someone re-clones as requested, all is well. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >- If someone doesn't re-clone, then there are two cases: >> > >>> > > - Merging the old local master against the new remote >>master: >> > >>> Massive >> > >>> > >conflicts; should remind people that there was something about >> this >> > >>> repo. >> > >>> > > - Pushing the old local master to the new remote master: >>Fails >> > >>> because >> > >>> > >it's not a fast-forward merge. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >So that's pretty okay. It would take real effort to resolve >>these >> > >>> > >conflicts >> > >>> > >and try to push the result. No one is likely to do that, and >>they >> > >>>still >> > >>> > >can't cause lasting damage unless it's a committer. All the >> > >>>committers >> > >>> are >> > >>> > >aware of this problem, and getting that huge conflict is >>likely to >> > >>> remind >> > >>> > >them of this. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >Braden >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> >>wrote: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> Thanks for taking that on Braden >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> On 6/3/13 10:15 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" >><bra...@chromium.org> >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >I've bumped the INFRA ticket[1], I'll keep this thread up to >> date >> > >>> with >> > >>> > >>any >> > >>> > >> >changes there. >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > >> >Braden >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > >> >On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> >> wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> > >> >> Option 2! Let's move forward and get this sorted. >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> On 5/29/13 1:17 PM, "Jesse MacFadyen" < >> purplecabb...@gmail.com >> > > >> > >>> > >>wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >I am liking option 2 now. Seems easy enough. >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >Cheers, >> > >>> > >> >> > Jesse >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >Sent from my iPhone5 >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >On 2013-05-29, at 9:06 AM, Michal Mocny < >> mmo...@chromium.org> >> > >>> > wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >For the record, I don't mind a reclone, so long as there >>are >> > >>>no >> > >>> > >> >>negative >> > >>> > >> >> >repercussions, ie, (1) its not called master2 and (2) >>there >> > >>>is no >> > >>> > >>way >> > >>> > >> >>for >> > >>> > >> >> >anyone to shoot us in the foot if they forget to re-clone >> > >>> properly >> > >>> > >>and >> > >>> > >> >> >start doing merges/pushes/whatever. >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >So, if (2) fails loudly thats my preference. Otherwise, >>I >> > >>>don't >> > >>> > >>mind >> > >>> > >> >>(4) >> > >>> > >> >> >but others might, and I hate (3) more than (1) :) >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >-Michal >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Braden Shepherdson >> > >>> > >> >> ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >>> > >> >> >> This would be an example of "continuing to pay the >>price >> for >> > >>> not >> > >>> > >> >>being >> > >>> > >> >> >> willing to re-clone 1, 3, 6, 12 months ago." We can >>avoid >> > >>>all >> > >>> of >> > >>> > >>that >> > >>> > >> >> >> nonsense with three lines. >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> Braden >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Michal Mocny >> > >>> > >><mmo...@chromium.org> >> > >>> > >> >> >> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >>> Can we go with (1) and still keep master2 around >>(perhaps >> > >>> rename >> > >>> > >>it >> > >>> > >> >>to >> > >>> > >> >> >>> something sensible) so that we can still get full >>history >> > >>>but >> > >>> > >>with >> > >>> > >> >>one >> > >>> > >> >> >>> level of indirection: >> > >>> > >> >> >>> - The mega commit could have a commit message such as >> "THIS >> > >>> WAS A >> > >>> > >> >>HACKY >> > >>> > >> >> >>> MERGE, FOR REAL HISTORY LOOK IN THE OLD_FUTURE BRANCH" >> > >>> > >> >> >>> - When you bit blame and see that as the commit >> > >>>responsible, >> > >>> you >> > >>> > >> >>know >> > >>> > >> >> >>>you >> > >>> > >> >> >>> have to git blame again in the other branch >> > >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>> -Michal >> > >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ian Clelland >> > >>> > >> >><iclell...@google.com> >> > >>> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> SInce 2 and 3 both require re-cloning the repository, >> I'd >> > >>> much >> > >>> > >> >>rather >> > >>> > >> >> >> go >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> with 2, and rename the branches appropriately. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Brian LeRoux >> > >>><b...@brian.io> >> > >>> > >>wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> ya the rename easiest >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Braden Shepherdson >>< >> > >>> > >> >> >>> bra...@chromium.org >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> I'll keep this thread up to date with INFRA's >> responses. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> I asked INFRA about options and their implications. >> > >>>These >> > >>> are >> > >>> > >>the >> > >>> > >> >> >>> four >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> options I described, after I was informed that our >> > >>>original >> > >>> > >> >>request >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> would >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> actually require everyone to re-clone the repo. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 1. Check out master, delete all the files, copy in >>all >> > >>>the >> > >>> > >>files >> > >>> > >> >> >>> from >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master2, check them all in. This keep the branching >> the >> > >>> same, >> > >>> > >>and >> > >>> > >> >> >> no >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> one >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> would need to re-clone. But it also makes the >>history >> > >>> nearly >> > >>> > >> >> >> useless >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> before >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> that point. I dislike this option, but it's there. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 2. Rename master to old_master or similar, and >>rename >> > >>> master2 >> > >>> > >>to >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> master. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Since everyone is re-cloning anyway, this is >>possible. >> > >>> Keeps >> > >>> > >>the >> > >>> > >> >> >> name >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> consistent. This might be nasty if someone tries to >> > >>>merge >> > >>> > >>between >> > >>> > >> >> >> an >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> old >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master and the new master. Unless git can notice >>that >> > >>> things >> > >>> > >>are >> > >>> > >> >> >>> wrong >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> they should re-clone. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 3. My original request to move HEAD. Exposes the >> master2 >> > >>> name >> > >>> > >>and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> requires >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> everyone to use it. Still requires a re-clone. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 4. Abandon the repository and recreate it under a >>new >> > >>>name, >> > >>> > >> >>pushing >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> only >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master2 as the new master. Requires a re-clone and >> > >>>changing >> > >>> > >>the >> > >>> > >> >> >> name. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Probably not, but it's an option. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> What do people think? I'm most partial to 2, since >>it >> > >>> > >>preserves >> > >>> > >> >>the >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> master >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> name and it's hard to avoid recloning. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Braden >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jesse >> > >>> > >><purplecabb...@gmail.com> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> What is the resolution on this? >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> My opinion: History is in the past, move on. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I think it's okay if it is history is messy, or >>even >> if >> > >>> has a >> > >>> > >> >>few >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> duplicate >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> commits. Tangles and all. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> @purplecabbage >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> risingj.com >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Braden >>Shepherdson < >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> bra...@chromium.org >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> I think so, but only if we're prepared to keep >>the >> > >>> tangled >> > >>> > >> >> >> history >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> duplicate about 30 commits. Several mistakes were >> made >> > >>> with >> > >>> > >>the >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> branching >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> and rebasing of things on master, and there's a >>lot >> of >> > >>> > >> >> >> duplication >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> confusion in the history. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> When you get in this morning, I can show you the >> > >>> whiteboard >> > >>> > >> >> >>> diagram >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> of >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> the >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> long version above, and then you can look at the >> > >>> histories >> > >>> > >>of >> > >>> > >> >> >>> master >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master2 on GitX. I think you'll agree it's worth >> > >>>moving >> > >>> > >>forward >> > >>> > >> >> >>> with >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master2. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Braden >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> agri...@chromium.org >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Could we merge master2 into master with: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> git merge --strategy-option=theirs master2 >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Braden >> Shepherdson < >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> bra...@chromium.org >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> tl;dr version: cordova-cli now has a master2 >> branch >> > >>> that >> > >>> > >> >> >>> should >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> be >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> treated >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> as master going forward. DO NOT use master or >> future >> > >>> > >> >> >> anymore. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Short version: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I tried to merge future and master. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I couldn't because the history is a train >>wreck. >> > >>>The >> > >>> > >> >> >>> morbidly >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> curious >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> should see [2]. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Ian and I dug through the history, and played >> CSI >> > >>> until >> > >>> > >>we >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> figured >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> out >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> what had happened, and found a sensible way to >> > >>> > >>reconstruct a >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> sane >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> branch. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - This branch merged fairly neatly with future. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - It is now committed as the new branch >>master2. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - The original master branch is deprecated. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I have filed an INFRA ticket[1] to get them >>to >> > >>>point >> > >>> > >>HEAD >> > >>> > >> >> >> at >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> master2, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> delete the old master branch. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Use master2 from now on. DO NOT touch the old >> > >>>master >> > >>> or >> > >>> > >> >> >>> future >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branches >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> anymore. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'll keep the list updated on the state of the >> INFRA >> > >>> > >>ticket. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Braden >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6302 >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] Long version: >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> A long time ago, I forked cli's master to >>create >> > >>> future. I >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> committed >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> a >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> half-dozen changes or so. Sometime later, a >>2.7.x >> > >>> branch >> > >>> > >>was >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> forked >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> /from >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> future/. Several changes were made here. Later >>it >> > >>>was >> > >>> > >>merged >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> back >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> in, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> /to >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> master/. The same changes were later rebased >>onto >> > >>> master >> > >>> > >>and >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> committed >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> again, duplicating them. Then this branch was >> merged >> > >>> with >> > >>> > >> >> >>> master >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> again, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> creating a /third/ copy of the changes >>originally >> > >>>from >> > >>> > >>this >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> 2.7.x >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branch. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, some of the changes from future were >> > >>> reverted >> > >>> > >>by >> > >>> > >> >> >>> hand >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> (as >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> opposed to with git revert) in master. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finally some new changes were made to future >>and >> > >>> master. >> > >>> > >>It >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> looks, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> according to git, like there are only these >> changes >> > >>>on >> > >>> the >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> future >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branch, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> since the earlier ones were merged by accident >> some >> > >>> time >> > >>> > >> >> >> ago. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> When I came along and tried to merge master and >> > >>>future >> > >>> in >> > >>> > >> >> >>> either >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> direction, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> or rebase in either direction, those older >>future >> > >>> changes >> > >>> > >> >> >>> stayed >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> deleted, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> because according to git they were made on the >> same >> > >>> > >>branch. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Moral of the story: Don't take a branch off >>master >> > >>> (like >> > >>> > >> >> >>>> future), >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> fork >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> it, >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> commit to it, and then merge it back to master. >> > >>>That's >> > >>> > >>what >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> started >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> most >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> of >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> the insanity, because now future is partially >> merged >> > >>> into >> > >>> > >> >> >>> master >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> even >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> though it's not being treated that way. >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I need a drink. >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >>
