http://landbeforetime.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Valley
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco...@ucr.edu> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >
