No, we are living in the GREAT valley :) Steven On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like things are GOOD! Excellent. (So not to be feared like the > event that the name of this one keeps reminding me of: > http://landbeforetime.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Earthshake :-).) > > > On 4/4/16 1:12 PM, Steven Jacobs wrote: > >> It seems that I might be the only one concerned here, but it seems like >> there should be others, so I am continuing this thread. >> >> I modified the perl REGEX from Chris' summer solution, and it works! >> >> Once Ian has merged master: >> >> 1. On your local branch, find the *parent* of the first commit you want to >> migrate onto the new master, e.g. de6e0da24c26037967eb9a937d2c77c6c43e8761 >> >> 2. Run this magic command: >> >> git format-patch --stdout de6e0da24c26037967eb9a937d2c77c6c43e8761 | >> perl -pe 's#asterix-#asterixdb/asterix-#g' > /tmp/my.patch >> >> 3. Now fetch 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 >> >> >> This recognized ALL of my file moves/renames and applied them correctly. >> It >> leaves only two issues: >> 1) Something similar will probably need to be done for Hyracks changes >> 2) My pom changes didn't apply. This isn't so bad since there are only a >> few pom files total. >> >> >> I hope this helps, >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco...@ucr.edu> wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >
