I'm not sure if it was necessary to rename it, but the original issue is that the hyracks repo itself has a folder named hyracks, that contains hyracks. I thought this might confuse git if I did something like make a new temporary folder, move everything into that, and then rename it to 'hyracks'.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Till Westmann <ti...@apache.org> wrote: > Interesting! > > One thing I’m wondering about is why you’ve added "-fullstack" to the > artifactId and the hyracks module. > > Cheers, > Till > > > On 31 Mar 2016, at 17:21, Ian Maxon wrote: > > I've gone ahead and tried merging my topic branch with this change, and it >> turned out surprisingly well. I really didn't have many issues. I'll >> summarize the process: >> >> 1) Merge the change from asterixdb with your topic branch checked out, so >> just 'git merge hyracks-merge2'. >> The only real conflict should be the pom, if you altered that. I found it >> easiest to just replicate my changes and take the upstream, rather than >> trying anything funny, since usually pom changes are not major. >> >> 2) Add your hyracks folder as a remote (for me, 'git remote add >> hyracks-local file:///home/...') >> >> 3) Merge your hyracks topic branch into asterixdb ( ' git merge >> hyracks-local/imaxon/hdfs') >> This also worked pretty well, the only extra hiccup besides the pom was >> files I had created. Those appeared at the top level again after the >> merge. >> But, all you have to do is move them back down one folder into >> hyracks-fullstack. >> >> That's about it really. I went ahead and pushed this up to github as well >> so if anyone would like to take a look at the process or check out the >> branch to see what happened (at least for me), the branch is here: >> >> https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/tree/imaxon/hdfs-plus-hyracks >> >> Thanks, >> -Ian >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Ian Maxon <ima...@uci.edu> wrote: >> >> Chris found an issue with the way git histories were being handled in the >>> way I merged things, so I have revised the proposed branch: >>> https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/commits/hyracks-merge2 >>> >>> Basically I was trying to fit everything into one commit, because I >>> thought at first that I could submit it to Gerrit that way. However that >>> doesn't work for other reasons, basically Gerrit tries to treat every new >>> commit from Hyracks as a new change. Splitting the commits of the >>> repository merge fixes the issue. >>> >>> >>> @Till, I think that creating a textual patch would just be more work. If >>> I >>> were to do it that way I would try fetching the Gerrit patch, and then >>> cherry-picking it onto a new branch that has the hyracks+asterix master >>> as >>> the head. >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Till Westmann <ti...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> To get existing patches in, could we just create a textual patch (e.g. >>>> from gerrit), apply that with the necessary -p option to a new local >>>> checkout of the merged repositories and submit a new review to gerrit? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Till >>>> >>>> On 30 Mar 2016, at 12:36, Ian Maxon wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>> I went ahead preliminarily merged the Hyracks and AsterixDB >>>>> repositories >>>>> into one. Unfortunately this can't be reviewed in Gerrit so you all can >>>>> check it out here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/tree/imaxon/merge-hyracks >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You will likely have to do some ugly rebasing for whatever changes you >>>>> might have open once this gets done, since it moves asterixdb down one >>>>> folder and swaps out pom.xml in the repository root. Hyracks is in a >>>>> similar situation, though you would want to reapply your change to the >>>>> AsterixDB repo from Hyracks (which is a bit odd). If you would like to >>>>> >>>> see >>>> >>>>> how this affects your branch please do try fetching the branch I linked >>>>> above and testing it out on a copy of your topic branch. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still making sure all of the tests pass but nothing's failed so >>>>> far. >>>>> Unless anyone has objections I think we should push this change either >>>>> >>>> this >>>> >>>>> week or early next week. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know what you all think. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> - Ian >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>
