OK thanks, sounds good to me then. Let's try and do development work on master from now on though...
Colm. On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> wrote: > FYI, I contacted Colin Ma who was working on the refactoring and he was Ok > with skipping this change for 1.8. That said, the refactoring was done for > a reason it we should get back to it post 1.8, > > - Alex > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 5:51 PM Hao Hao <hao....@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > The proposal is good to me as well. Should we start a vote on this? Or we > > can just start to do it if no one is objecting? > > > > Best, > > Hao > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Vamsee Yarlagadda <vam...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Cherry-pick any commits that happened since sentry-ha-redesign was > > > forked, > > > > except a few described below > > > > Exclude big refactoring commit (SENTRY-1205) and related commits > > > > (SENTRY-1436, SENTRY-1438, SENTRY-1406) > > > > Rename master to a dev branch > > > > Rename sentry-ha-redesign to master > > > > > > > > > This sounds good to me. Generally having merge commits complicates the > > git > > > history and might get tricky when we are debugging things. I would > rather > > > stick with the approach of cherry-picks to make the history clear. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Vamsee > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I would like to make a more concrete proposal and I am interested in > > > > opinion from Sentry PMC members on this. > > > > > > > > I would propose the following approach for merging Sentry HA into > > Sentry > > > > master: > > > > > > > > Cherry-pick any commits that happened since sentry-ha-redesign was > > > forked, > > > > except a few described below > > > > Exclude big refactoring commit (SENTRY-1205) and related commits > > > > (SENTRY-1436, SENTRY-1438, SENTRY-1406) > > > > Rename master to a dev branch > > > > Rename sentry-ha-redesign to master > > > > > > > > What does community think about such approach? > > > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Alexander Kolbasov < > ak...@cloudera.com> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Vamsee > > > > > > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
