+1 On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
