I'm afraid many people don't have patience to read all the contents.
Here is my summary in short (please correct me if I'm wrong):
- For bug fixes, the target branch should be branch-3.0. Once the PR
is merged into branch-3.0, checkout the branch-3.x and run `git merge
branch-3.0` and resolve the conflicts
- For features, the target branch should be branch-3.x

Since we introduced the LTS concept, I agree that we should make
branch-3.0 as the default branch. Cherry-picking is a disaster when
cherry-picks happen in the wrong order.


Thanks,
Yunze

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 8:38 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> To enhance our maintenance processes, I've created a guide for
> configuring "git mergetool" to resolve merge conflicts:
>
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/setup-mergetool/
>
> For Apache Pulsar core developers, managing git merge conflict
> resolution is a necessary task. To streamline this process, it's crucial
> to set up tools that aid in visualizing and resolving these conflicts.
>
> I encourage you to follow the guide to set up a git mergetool. Your
> feedback is valuable, and you're welcome to contribute improvements
> directly to the website. You can do this by creating a PR by editing
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/edit/main/contribute/setup-mergetool.md
> directly in your browser.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2024/03/01 14:01:55 Lari Hotari wrote:
> > Dear Pulsar Community,
> >
> > As we prepare for new releases in our maintenance branches, we have once
> > again encountered issues with our cherry-picking process. Some of our
> > maintenance branches are currently broken or were recently broken,
> > containing compilation errors or failing tests. Many have encountered
> > these issues, as we have seen new PRs come in to address the
> > problems. The compilation problems are already being addressed by
> > Heesung (release manager for 3.0.3) and myself. We aim to resolve these
> > issues as soon as possible. Please join #dev channel on Apache Pulsar
> > Slack to collaborate in real time to help with this and get updates.
> >
> > The cherry-picking process has always been problematic and lacks clear
> > documentation in Apache Pulsar. This often leads to our maintenance
> > branches breaking, especially as we approach release dates and begin
> > cherry-picking fixes. This recurring issue has been the subject of
> > multiple discussions over the years. The "feature freeze" in the release
> > process does not mitigate the key problem with the cherry-picking
> > approach.
> >
> > Furthermore, the cherry-picking process is mostly based on tribal
> > knowledge and lacks clear documentation. I have previously expressed my
> > concerns about this on the mailing list in this thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/69mwjso51kzkrv5xgdmw04d9wngbg8br
> >
> > Many problems with cherry-picking arise because cherry-picks occur in
> > the wrong order, or dependent changes are not picked. Some dependent
> > changes shouldn't be picked since when we have made bug fixes in the
> > master branch, it can already contain changes for new features that
> > shouldn't be applied to maintenance branches. In those cases
> > a backport of the fix is needed and the original developer of the
> > PR might not be available to do this and there could be a significant
> > delay for the release if delivering the backport takes time.
> >
> > When cherry-picking and backporting is delegated to other developers,
> > in addition to delays, it can lead to coordination problems and commits
> > being picked and applied in an order that results in even more merge
> > conflicts. Thankfully, this isn't usually too painful, but it does
> > happen once in a while.
> >
> > A few days ago, I began working on improving the documentation of the
> > current process. I have added a section where I share some thoughts and
> > a tool to prevent future problems. You can find the document here:
> > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-process/#cherry-picking-changes-scheduled-for-the-release.
> > However, this does not fully describe the current process and will only
> > help to some extent.
> >
> > The added section should help prevent cherry-picking in the wrong order,
> > but it still has many gaps. Many developers do not have proper merge
> > conflict resolution tools configured. Without proper 3-way diff
> > visualization and merge tools, it's very difficult to resolve many of
> > the merge conflicts without making mistakes. This also requires a deep
> > understanding of the module where the conflicts occur.
> >
> > After we have made the next set of maintenance releases, I plan to
> > propose an alternative to the cherry-picking process that will address
> > the main issues that the Apache Pulsar project has been struggling with
> > every time we do releases.
> >
> > The alternative would be to designate the LTS branch as the default
> > branch, make bug fixes primarily in the LTS branch, merge fixes to newer
> > branches, and cherry-pick to possible older branches. This common
> > approach in many projects leverages what Git does well: handling
> > development across multiple branches. This solution ensures that our LTS
> > branch is always immediately in a releasable state and the branch will
> > also become the most stable version of Pulsar since bug fixes are
> > continuously evaluated and integrated into the LTS branch with our CI
> > where bug fix PRs are targeted to the LTS branch.
> > Stability was the original goal of PIP-175 where the LTS concept was
> > introduced to Pulsar.
> >
> > I hope that our community would be open to making changes to the
> > maintenance strategy to help resolve the pain that we have to deal with
> > each time we make releases. Sometimes, this "cherry-picking vs. merging
> > branches" discussion becomes a "tabs vs. spaces" type of pointless
> > discussion where personal preferences are emphasized. I hope that we can
> > avoid that and admit the fact that releasing Apache Pulsar LTS with this
> > cherry-picking process is a pain and we must fix it to make progress as
> > a development community.
> >
> > -Lari
> >

Reply via email to