This is not a big deal. we can figure that out once a solution to the current issue is agreed on.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate > this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review > actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop > of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them. > > -Ian > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's > comment, I > > am not sure that would be the way to go. > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it > >> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes). > >> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch? > >> > >> -I an > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review > with > >> > this and submitted a new batch to the review. > >> > > >> > How should this be handled? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the > >> >> best plan as I see it: > >> >> > >> >> The last commit we have in ASF master right now > >> >> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to > >> >> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message > >> >> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper > >> >> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the > >> >> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both > >> >> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and > >> >> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal > >> >> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the > incorrect > >> >> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's > >> >> master, is likely the least painful option. > >> >> > >> >> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled > c66d23a5 > >> >> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For > >> >> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once > the > >> >> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some > >> >> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last > >> >> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest). > >> >> > >> >> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git > >> >> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's > >> >> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen. > >> >> > >> >> - Ian > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Hi Jochen, > >> >> > > >> >> > We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I > would > >> >> > say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which > was > >> >> > preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could > >> >> > directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through > >> >> > Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The > reason > >> >> > for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from > Gerrit, > >> >> > and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it > being > >> >> > a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like > working > >> >> > with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less > >> >> > error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one > can > >> >> > submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the > script > >> >> > wasn't used, not sure which). > >> >> > > >> >> > - Ian > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi, Ian, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> the information that I read from your mail is that there are > >> currently > >> >> >> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache > >> >> >> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit > master > >> >> >> branch". > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what > can > >> >> >> we do to fix that? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Jochen > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >>> Hey all, > >> >> >>> If you haven't pulled from > >> >> >>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git > >> >> >>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please > don't > >> >> >>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for > >> submitting > >> >> >>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got > >> committed > >> >> >>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly > agree > >> >> >>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at > the > >> >> >>> moment. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse > >> >> >>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , > >> please > >> >> >>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you > have > >> >> >>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to > force-push > >> >> >>> and overwrite the latest commit from. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Thanks, > >> >> >>> -Ian > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare, > >> >> >> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two > >> Three) > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Amoudi, Abdullah. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Amoudi, Abdullah. > -- Amoudi, Abdullah.
