+1 On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > I believe the cherry picking approach will avoid merge-forward problems > we've experienced, allow for less friction during community contribution, > and create a more stable project overall. > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:17 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I went back and looked at PUP-3 and it does lay out some of the items >>> @pcreech mentions although at a higher, more general level. I’ll leave the >>> document as is unless someone disagrees. >>> >>> With that in mind, let's go ahead and vote on PUP-3. We’ll end the >>> voting on October 8th which is about 10 days away. >>> >>> To refresh everyone’s memory, voting is outlined in PUP-1: >>> >>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#voting >>> >>> And here’s the PUP in question: >>> >>> https://github.com/daviddavis/pups/blob/pup3/pup-0003.md >>> >>> Please respond to this thread with your vote or any comments/questions. >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks @pcreech for all the comments. I also believe that switching to >>>> a cherry-picking model will provide many benefits. >>>> >>>> As a general FYI, the way PUP-3 is written, it allows us to adopt it >>>> (assuming it passes at vote) and then figure out how to roll it out later >>>> in coordination w/ release engineering. >>>> >>>> @daviddavis, should we start casting votes or should we wait for you to >>>> declare it open after maybe pushing an update? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Patrick, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I’d like to update PUP-3 in the next couple >>>>> days with the pain points you mention. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I’d love the idea of having some tooling that tells us exactly >>>>> which commits to cherry pick into which release branch. I think we should >>>>> have this in place before we switch to cherry-picking if we decide to go >>>>> that route. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Patrick Creech <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Since I was one of the early voices against cherrypicking during the >>>>>> initial vote, I figured I'd send this e-mail along with some points that >>>>>> have helped me be in favor of cherry picking before voting >>>>>> starts. >>>>>> >>>>>> In taking over the release engineering process, I have gained some >>>>>> perspective on our current situation and have found Cherrypicking to be >>>>>> an >>>>>> enticing concept for pulp. Most notably, these are the >>>>>> things I ran into during the release process for 2.13.4 that caused >>>>>> some headaches and frustrations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Firstly, we had an issue come up with the Pulp Docker 2 line that >>>>>> does not exist with the new Pulp Docker 3 line. Dockerhub V2 Schema2 has >>>>>> some manifest issues that cause syncs in the Pulp Docker 2 >>>>>> line to fail. A change specific to this issue was created and merged >>>>>> to the 2.4-dev branch. It's only application is the 2 line, but to >>>>>> satisfy >>>>>> our current tooling and policy, this change had to be >>>>>> merged forward through 3.0-dev and to Master, where it no longer >>>>>> applies and the code no longer exists in this form. I took great care to >>>>>> verify that no code changes happened on 3.0-dev and master, >>>>>> but there is the window open for issues here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another issue that happened is when issues that are merged from a >>>>>> -dev branch aren't merged forward. In this case, two issues that landed >>>>>> on >>>>>> the most recent -dev branch weren't merged forward along >>>>>> to master before a helper script was ran. When this helper script >>>>>> ran, it was ran with the merge strategy of "ours" to ensure it's changes >>>>>> don't persist forward. When "ours" is used, conflicting >>>>>> changes are automatically dropped from the source branch to the >>>>>> destination branch. This caused the code for these two changes to >>>>>> dissapear on the master branch, while their commit hashes were there >>>>>> in the history. I had to cherry-pick these changes forward to master >>>>>> from the branch they landed on to ensure the modified code exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> And lastly, since 2.13.4 was a 2.13.z release that was done after >>>>>> 2.14.0 went out, changes had to be cherry-picked back from 2.14-dev to >>>>>> 2.13-dev. Since the hash changed, these changes yet again had >>>>>> to be merged forward to 2.14-dev and then Master, even though they >>>>>> already existed in these branches, thus helping to pollute the repo >>>>>> history >>>>>> further with more duplication. >>>>>> >>>>>> While a large portion of these issues can be attributed to the merge >>>>>> forward everything policy, I have been in talks with other teams that >>>>>> follow a cherrypicking strategy about their workflow since >>>>>> I'm in the process of revamping pulp's release engineering process. >>>>>> Something that caught my attention as beneficial is a team's strategy >>>>>> that >>>>>> everything goes on master, and with some automated >>>>>> tooling and bookeeping in their issue tracker they can identify what >>>>>> cherrypicks need to be pulled back to the release branch and spit out a >>>>>> command for the release engineer to run to do the >>>>>> cherrypicks. The release engineer resolves any conflicts, and then >>>>>> puts up a PR to merge into the release branch so the work goes through >>>>>> the >>>>>> normal testing + review process. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In short, at this point I have come to believe that switching to a >>>>>> cherry-pick model will allow us greater flexibility and accuracy in >>>>>> ensuring our releases contain what we want them to contain, and >>>>>> don't contain what we don't want. With tooling, it should also help >>>>>> simplify ensuring the right things get put in the right places. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > -- Michael Hrivnak Principal Software Engineer, RHCE Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
