> On Mar 22, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Sergio Pena <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The usual way we do this in other projects is the 1st option. We can create a 
> new JIRA for the merge, then submit the patch with the conflicts resolved, 
> wait for tests, then commit it.

The real question here is whether we allow merge commits or not for Sentry. It 
would be rather difficult do do without a merge commit.

> 
> Although the 2nd option looks easier if we only missing one commit, but I 
> think we should avoid it just in case we missed to port some commits from 
> master to the branch.
> 
> If you don't want to include SENTRY-1205, then just revert it from master, 
> and then do the merge from sentry-ha-design to master. That would work.

At this point even everting SENTRY-1205 from master is quite non-trivial 
because many of the moved files also changed. That’s why I am bringing this up, 
otherwise it would be a clear deal.

- Sasha

> 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to start the discussion on merging sentry-ha-redesign branch
> with master.
> 
> As of now most of the changes from master are merged into
> sentry-ha-redesign. The major missing part is SENTRY-1205 (Refactor the
> code for sentry-provider-db and create sentry-service module) and
> associated issues. This refactoring is very hard to port, especially since
> there is very little information in the JIRA on why it was done and how it
> was done - was it merely moving files around or more then that. I would
> seriously consider not including this change in 1.8.
> 
> So in regards to the merge we have several options:
> 
> 
>    - Attempt to merge master into sentry-ha-redesign, resolve any conflicts
>    and later commit the merge to master. This will cause merge commit on 
> master
>    - Finish work on sentry-ha-redesign, make sure that relevant commits are
>    ported from master, and then making this a master branch and making current
>    master a special branch left for reference purposes. This will likely leave
>    SENTRY-1205 and related issues out.
> 
> What does community think about this?
> 
> - Alex
> 

Reply via email to