Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

Just received an email today from Infra that force pushes are allowed again. Relevant excerpt below: -- First, If a forced commit is pushed, the subsequent commit email will contain '[Forced Update!]' in the subject line. The hope here is that it draws extra attention to the situation

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

Sangjin, Steve and others: just curious if you guys figured out a way to address/workaround this hurdle - not being able to delete or force push. Should we reach out to INFRA again? On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2015, at

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

There was this on the infra email back in December: On 1 December 2015 at 13:55, David Nalley wrote: > > As part of the steps to removing the git lockdown, the board has > tasked the President (and by extension Infrastructure) with defining: > > some ASF-wide convention for

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 22:47, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > If we do use "feature/..." as the branch naming convention, it does pose an > issue with the patch naming due to the separator character ('/'). How about > "feature-..."? In most spark UIs, they get treated as subdirectories

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

Yes, I completely understand about the git branch naming practice (in fact that's what I normally do). I was commenting on our hadoop patch naming convention. We are supposed to use patch names as "-..patch". If we used "feature/HADOOP-12345" as the git branch name and the subtask JIRA was

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

I suppose that would be fine too. Yetus just needs to add "feature/" to the git branch name when it fails to find it as is. So it would require a little work on yetus, but I guess should be pretty trivial? On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > > > On

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

Implementing project-specific patch identification rules are definitely ‘not trivial’. FWIW, the documented ruleset Yetus supports is here: https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/latest/precommit-patchnames/ (Altho, in reality, the code does support more than this but they are sort

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > I don't think we're proposing project-specific rules. It would be a > recognition of the git branch name prefix "feature/". > > If the file name had "HADOOP-67890-HADOOP-12345.001.patch" where > HADOOP-12345 was the

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

> On 12 Nov 2015, at 17:49, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > Yes, I completely understand about the git branch naming practice (in fact > that's what I normally do). I was commenting on our hadoop patch naming > convention. We are supposed to use patch names as > "-..patch". > > If we

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

I don't think we're proposing project-specific rules. It would be a recognition of the git branch name prefix "feature/". If the file name had "HADOOP-67890-HADOOP-12345.001.patch" where HADOOP-12345 was the feature JIRA but the git branch was "feature/HADOOP-12345", if yetus didn't find a branch

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

If we do use "feature/..." as the branch naming convention, it does pose an issue with the patch naming due to the separator character ('/'). How about "feature-..."? On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Anu Engineer wrote: > I ran into the same issue and filed an INFRA

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

> On 10 Nov 2015, at 22:07, Karthik Kambatla wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Recently, Infra disabled force-pushes (and non-fast-forward pushes) to all > branches to avoid accidental overwrites or deletions. > > I propose we reach out to Infra and ask for an exemption since our

Need for force-push on feature branches

Hi folks, Recently, Infra disabled force-pushes (and non-fast-forward pushes) to all branches to avoid accidental overwrites or deletions. I propose we reach out to Infra and ask for an exemption since our workflow for feature branches involves deletions and force-pushes. We should likely wait

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

I already opened an INFRA JIRA for my specific issue (INFRA-10745 ), and also sent email to them. Steve Loughran made me aware of the lockdown there. We can reuse that JIRA for this discussion? I don't mind following up later, as we're blocked

Re: Need for force-push on feature branches

I ran into the same issue and filed an INFRA jira too. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10720 So +1 for having the git control back Thanks Anu On 11/10/15, 2:45 PM, "Steve Loughran" wrote: > >> On 10 Nov 2015, at 22:07, Karthik Kambatla