Thanks Scott, Done, would you mind checking the origin/CURATOR-167 to make sure that I haven't done anything wrong! I have done a git pull on a different machine and it seems to be ok. cheers
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > You just force push your branch. > > If it's your feature branch, and you know you have it in a good state > locally, you can just force push the remote branch into the same state. > > You'd never want to do that to master, a release branch, or someone else's > branch. > On Aug 24, 2015 11:15 PM, "Cameron McKenzie" <mckenzie....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks Mike, > > That was a good description. The CURATOR-167 branch is definitely there > as > > it's been a pull request for the last few months. So, I'll await your > > thoughts in the morning. Alternatively, I can just merge master instead > of > > rebasing it. > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > Yea, that's the big downside with rebasing, is that remotes don't > exactly > > > keep up with the history. I'm going to try to explain this as best as I > > > can, but usually I point people towards this excellent "Git for Ages 4 > > and > > > Up" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4 - he talks about > > > rebases at the very very end, around the 1:30 mark. > > > > > > Essentially, your current version of the branch does not have the > remote > > > version of the as an ancestor. Which is correct, when you did the > rebase, > > > you wrote a new commit lineage. > > > > > > I didn't realize that there was already a CURATOR-167 branch pushed to > > the > > > repo when I gave you those steps. I'll have to look at what's going on > > with > > > a fresh set of eyes in the morning. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > mckenzie....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I just tried this and obviously I'm doing something wrong. > > > > > > > > git checkout CURATOR-167 > > > > git pull > > > > git rebase -i origin/master > > > > > > > > #This gives me a dialog with one commit with pick > > > > Save and exit > > > > #This gives a merge conflict and leaves me in a detached head state > (I > > > > presume this is ok). > > > > Fix up the merge conflict > > > > git rebase --continue > > > > #This gives me a dialog to commit the changes > > > > Save and exit > > > > #Everything seems fine at this point. Builds ok, tests run ok. > > > > > > > > git push > > > > > > > > ! [rejected] CURATOR-167 -> CURATOR-167 (non-fast-forward) > > > > error: failed to push some refs to ' > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator.git' > > > > hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current branch is > > > > behind > > > > hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes (e.g. > > > > hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. > > > > hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' for > > > details. > > > > > > > > There have been no changes on the branch since I did the pull before > > the > > > > rebase. > > > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mike, > > > > > Will give it a spin today some time. > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> if you're going to tray that, here's what you want to do (assuming > > > > command > > > > >> line) > > > > >> > > > > >> git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the branch that you are > > changing > > > > >> git rebase -i master # rebase the current branch on top of the > given > > > > >> branch > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Scott, > > > > >> > I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's what > I'm > > > > used > > > > >> to, > > > > >> > but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and fix up > > > > >> CURATOR-167 > > > > >> > as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting there a > > > while). > > > > >> So, I > > > > >> > should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch? > > > > >> > cheers > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum < > > dragonsi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > LOL! So sorry to hear that. Yeah, it's definitely possible > to > > > mess > > > > >> > > things up badly. If I'm doing something particularly risky, > > I'll > > > > just > > > > >> > "git > > > > >> > > branch original" before I start, so as to leave a branch > pointer > > > at > > > > my > > > > >> > > start point as a safe recovery if it goes south. I also use > > gitk > > > to > > > > >> > > visualize sometimes. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that it's > > *really* > > > > >> hard to > > > > >> > > merge the wrong branch. If the list of commits that comes up > > > > doesn't > > > > >> > look > > > > >> > > basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- trying > to > > > > rebase > > > > >> > onto > > > > >> > > the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of which > > > aren't > > > > >> > yours. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely the > > right > > > > >> > approach > > > > >> > > if you're doing a merge strategy! I've just ended up > > gravitating > > > > to a > > > > >> > > rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've mentioned. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > > >> > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up several > > projects > > > > >> with > > > > >> > it > > > > >> > >> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking into a > sweat. > > > > "git > > > > >> > rebase > > > > >> > >> -i” is a lot safer, though. Here’s what I’ve been doing - let > > me > > > > >> know if > > > > >> > >> it’s OK. For branches that are off of CURATOR-3.0, I never > > merge > > > > >> > master. I > > > > >> > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In fact, > > should > > > we > > > > >> > have a > > > > >> > >> branch naming scheme to enforce this? > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> -Jordan > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum ( > > > > >> dragonsi...@apache.org) > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Correct. When I say "main" branch vs. "feature" branch I just > > > mean > > > > >> the > > > > >> > >> stable branch everyone is working against (3.0 or master) > vs. a > > > > >> feature > > > > >> > >> branch where you're actively working. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> You'll get to a point in development where you'll think "Hey, > > > there > > > > >> are > > > > >> > >> changes on the main branch I'm working against that I really > > need > > > > to > > > > >> > pull > > > > >> > >> into my feature branch." At that point (particularly if you > > have > > > an > > > > >> svn > > > > >> > >> background) you'll be tempted to merge the main branch into > > your > > > > >> feature > > > > >> > >> branch. I would suggest not doing that, as it makes the > history > > > > very > > > > >> > muddy > > > > >> > >> to follow. Instead, my workflow is usually more like this: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218. It was originally > branched > > > off > > > > >> 3.0, > > > > >> > >> and I want to pull in new changes. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> git remote update > > > > >> > >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0 > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> This pulls up an editor that gives me the list of commits to > > > > rebase. > > > > >> I > > > > >> > >> would typically exit out of the editor to at this point to > > accept > > > > the > > > > >> > >> commit list, but if I'm so inclined, I'll do things like > > reorder > > > > the > > > > >> > list, > > > > >> > >> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" into a > > more > > > > >> > curated > > > > >> > >> set of logical commits. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Once you exit the editor, git goes through and applies each > > > commit, > > > > >> one > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > >> a time, to the head of the target branch. It's like picking > up > > > your > > > > >> > commit > > > > >> > >> chain and dumping it at the end of the target branch, as if > all > > > > your > > > > >> > work > > > > >> > >> had been done against what's now the head of that branch. > > You'll > > > > may > > > > >> > have > > > > >> > >> to fix conflicts along the way, but usually not much more > than > > if > > > > you > > > > >> > did > > > > >> > >> it as a merge. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> I'd encourage us to try this out a couple times and get a > feel > > > for > > > > >> the > > > > >> > >> rebase flow. It's a little more to get your head around at > > first, > > > > but > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > >> upside is you end up with really easy to follow commit > > histories, > > > > >> which > > > > >> > >> makes it way easier to untangle problems later if they crop > up. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > > >> > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some > features > > > that > > > > >> are > > > > >> > >> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of > master. > > > The > > > > >> true > > > > >> > >> > “master” is Curator 2.x only, right? > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > -Jordan > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum ( > > > > >> dragonsi...@apache.org > > > > >> > ) > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits > > > > >> > >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8 > > > > >> > >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 is > > > getting > > > > >> > merged > > > > >> > >> > into feature branches. Almost every project I've been on we > > > don't > > > > >> tend > > > > >> > >> to > > > > >> > >> > do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't just > > > > >> aesthetic, > > > > >> > it > > > > >> > >> > can > > > > >> > >> > get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). If I > > want > > > to > > > > >> pull > > > > >> > >> > changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I > would > > > > >> typically > > > > >> > >> > *rebase* my feature branch against the main branch. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum < > > > > >> dragonsi...@apache.org> > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in 3.0. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > > >> > >> > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is still > > open > > > in > > > > >> > Jira. > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron McKenzie ( > > > > >> > >> > >> mckenzie....@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time. > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > > >> > >> > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new > > > CURATOR-3.0? > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > -Jordan > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
