Can we have a very small "how-to" to "how to get a right branch locally", "how to get trunk", etc.? Not sure I'm doing the right things ;)
Thanks, JM 2014-05-24 16:03 GMT-04:00 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>: > Correct > > > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > For those of us who only clone repository and pull for development, the > > only external impact is that trunk branch is gone, and now it is called > > master. Is this correct? > > > > $ git remote show origin > > * remote origin > > Fetch URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase.git > > Push URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase.git > > ... > > master tracked > > refs/remotes/origin/trunk stale (use 'git remote prune' > > to remove) > > > > > > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > INFRA-7800 has been resolved - trunk branch is gone. > > > > > > +1 to Ram's suggestion. > > > > > > On May 24, 2014, at 12:05 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > > > ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Just a small suggestion > > > > In the doc http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow > > > > > > > > it says > > > > Develop and commit the patch against trunk/master first > > > > > > > > I think we could update this clearly saying 'master'. The stmt seems > > as > > > if > > > > we could commit to either of those. May be it is only me but I feel > > > better > > > > to change it. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Ram > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> In addition I'd recommend not using a git repo that was cloned from > > the > > > old > > > >> read only mirror of SVN. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> You have to commit to master. This is the svn trunk. > > > >>> > > > >>> -Anoop- > > > >>> > > > >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > > > >>> ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Also the log of the master branch and the trunk branch does not > > match. > > > >>> The > > > >>>> master seems to have more commits than the trunk. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Regards > > > >>>> Ram > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:39 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > > > >>>> ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I tried with a commit. > > > >>>>> Reading the new doc added, should we commit to master or trunk or > > is > > > >> to > > > >>>>> both? > > > >>>>> I committed to trunk but the same does not come in the master. > > > >>>>> Also when i tried to merge my git clone that was pointing to the > > > >>> existing > > > >>>>> read only git repo is the udpates happening properly? A > > fetch/merge > > > >>>> almost > > > >>>>> took an entire update and did not merge properly leaving most of > > the > > > >>>> files > > > >>>>> in bad shape. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Regards > > > >>>>> Ram > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Nicolas Liochon < > > nkey...@gmail.com > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Can we now commit again, or is the migration still in progress? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Nicolas > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I added to the refguide here: > > > >>>>>>> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Also updated our build box references so point to git instead > of > > > >>> svn. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> St.Ack > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar < > e...@apache.org > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks guys for checking. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Can we at least agree on always using something like the > > > >> following > > > >>>>>> flow > > > >>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>> checking in for now: > > > >>>>>>>> - Commit the patch to trunk. > > > >>>>>>>> - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible > > > >>>>>>>> - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we > > > >> should > > > >>>>>>>> cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Enis > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> What Andy said. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for > > > >> above > > > >>>>>>> commits). > > > >>>>>>>>> I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> St.Ack > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > >>>>>> apurt...@apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent > > > >>> to > > > >>>>>> dev@ > > > >>>>>>> . > > > >>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>> suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine. > > > >> So > > > >>> I > > > >>>>>> guess > > > >>>>>>>>> it's > > > >>>>>>>>>> open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for > > > >>> folks > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>>>> waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying > > > >> file > > > >>>>>>> contents > > > >>>>>>>>> were > > > >>>>>>>>>> good. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John < > > > >>>>>> anoop.hb...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Anoop- > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > > >>>>>>>> apurt...@apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration > > > >>> was > > > >>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>> progress?? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu < > > > >>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The diff shown in > > > >>> http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4icorresponds > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-11219 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this > > > >>> change. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > >>>>>>>>> apurt...@apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra has closed the migration ticket. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and > > > >> these > > > >>>> look > > > >>>>>>>> fine. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately there are differences between SVN > > > >>>> checkouts > > > >>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> Git > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 > > > >>> that > > > >>>>>> did > > > >>>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>>> make > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over to Git looks like. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.96: Good! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.94: Good! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.89-fb: Good! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack < > > > >>>> st...@duboce.net > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks T. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The trunk test is still running fine. Checkout > > > >>> local > > > >>>>>> looks > > > >>>>>>>>> good > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried a branch. It seems right too. Asking about > > > >>>>>>>> discrepancy > > > >>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tag > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listings between the branches up in the INFRA > > > >>>> issue.git. > > > >>>>>>>>> Working > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> file > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compares of svn and git checkouts.... Will report > > > >>>> back. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St.Ack > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu < > > > >>>>>>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and > > > >>>> triggered > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>> build. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far the tests are running fine. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu < > > > >>>>>>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I 'git clone'd master branch. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ran mvn package. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ran some tests. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked 'git log' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks Okay. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack < > > > >>>>>>> st...@duboce.net > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Migration looks done: > > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next up is checking if it is all there. I > > > >> was > > > >>>>>> going > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>> check > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> later > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, > > > >>>>>> that'd be > > > >>>>>>>>>> grand. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St.Ack > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew > > > >>> Purtell < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apurt...@apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also have done trunk first then cherry > > > >> pick > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> branches. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis > > > >>> Söztutar > > > >>>> < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enis....@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crew). On feature branches, lets see. > > > >>>>>> Squash > > > >>>>>>> if > > > >>>>>>>>>> messy > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> history > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (most > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases?)? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One immediate example is HBASE-10070 > > > >>> branch. > > > >>>> We > > > >>>>>>>>> wanted a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> smooth > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge, so > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the branch history is clean and every > > > >>> commit > > > >>>>>>> traces > > > >>>>>>>>> to a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> jira > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviews > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For "official" feature branches which > > > >> will > > > >>> be > > > >>>>>>> pushed > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> main > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo, I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require a similar thing. If people need a > > > >>>>>> working > > > >>>>>>>>> branch > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less-clean > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history, there is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no need to push that to the asf repo. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Accumulo doc makes for a good start > > > >>> [1] > > > >>>>>>>>> (ignoring > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> where > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branching > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> style is different to ours). It is > > > >>> informed > > > >>>>>> by > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workflow doc, also a good read [2]. > > > >> When > > > >>> in > > > >>>>>>> doubt, > > > >>>>>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we've > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for > > > >>>> hadoopqa > > > >>>>>>> run. > > > >>>>>>>>> Dump > > > >>>>>>>>>>> dev > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pains > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested solutions into this thread. > > > >>> Lets > > > >>>>>> keep > > > >>>>>>>> this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thread > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues we run into as a dev team and > > > >> our > > > >>>>>>>> (suggested) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solutions. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice diverges from that outline in > > > >>> docs > > > >>>>>>> above, > > > >>>>>>>>>> lets > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> note > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for a local doc. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both of the documents. Kafka does > > > >>> not > > > >>>>>> touch > > > >>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merge > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches at all. I used to do > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the > > > >>>> other > > > >>>>>>>>> branches > > > >>>>>>>>>>> (if > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise create a different patch and > > > >>> commit > > > >>>>>>>> approach > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> rather > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than merges across release branches. This > > > >>> is > > > >>>>>> more > > > >>>>>>>>>> similar > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> our > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think for existing release branches, > > > >> the > > > >>>>>> merge > > > >>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>> out > > > >>>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this correctly). We always did > > > >>>>>>>> trunk-first > > > >>>>>>>>>> than > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cherry-pick > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches approach, while Accumulo > > > >> suggests > > > >>>>>> that we > > > >>>>>>>> do > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> earlier > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then merge into master. Since I don't > > > >> have > > > >>>>>>>> experience > > > >>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure whether that will work for us or > > > >>>> not. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I need to heads-up our FB brothers and > > > >>>>>> sisters > > > >>>>>>>>> too.... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St.Ack > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Patch+submission+and+review#Patchsubmissionandreview-Simplecontributorworkflow > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
