Here is Chris's original solution to give context. I think changing the REGEX might be enough to re-use the solution:
1. On your local branch, find the *parent* of the first commit you want to migrate onto the new master. If you were fully up-to-date before the repackaging commits went in, this will be Till's change 95350e253f3462b1fb8d08396b4fddadaa33bf53, so I'll use that here. 2. Run this magic command: git format-patch --stdout 95350e253f3462b1fb8d08396b4fddadaa33bf53 | perl -pe 's#edu(.)uci.ics#org\1apache#g' > /tmp/my.patch 3. Now fetch the new master, and create a new local branch from it: git switch master; git pull; git checkout -B newbranch 4. Apply your tweaked patch: git am /tmp/my.patch Steven On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco...@ucr.edu> wrote: > I've tried doing this now on my branch. > As I feared, all of the files that are renamed/moved become conflicts > (just a few hundred conflicts in my case 😑). > I'm wondering if we could use a similar technique for what we did during > the summer (for the apache change) to get around this. > > Steven > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Till Westmann <ti...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I’m not sure I completely understand what you are saying. Is this a >> temporary state that will get cleaned up later or is this supposed to >> stay this way (having "-fullstack" in the names)? >> >> Thanks, >> Till >> >> >> On 31 Mar 2016, at 19:39, Ian Maxon wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
