Cos, As far as I understand a release is done, when a tag like release-1.0 is set, not when a branch is created. Since there is no release-1.0 tag, a release is not done. And the relase has still has no SHA, since we have no tag associated.
The merging of hotfix branches (suggested in the paper you mentioning) will do more harm to the log than a cherry-picking: On the release branch you will get two commits: The fix itself and a merge commit. With cherry-picking you will get only the fix itself. The hotfix branch does make sense when you'll need more than one commit to fix a issue on a release. But since we use the one-JIRA-one-Commit model, it does not make sense to create a branch for every commit needed on a release branch. We would be polluting the repository with stale branches, since we'll have to push each commit as a branch to the official repository. We cannot remove them later, even when merged completly. So I would say -1 to hotfix branches in Bigtop. Cherry-picking is valid if you'll need to fix releases through small changes (but only then). The fixes on bigtop where small.... Olaf > Am 14.07.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > I have committed BIGTOP-1923 to the master and cherry-picked it to the branch. > > The reason I did the cherry-picking is because there was a number of other > commits cherry-picked before me. I think cherry-picking is an ugly way of > doing SVN-like commit merges. And we should avoid it if possible. Definitely, > in case of release branches it should be doable via git branching model > like... > > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > which preserves the history and commit SHAs. Can we please avoid > cherry-picking on release branches in the future? Please.... > > Thanks > Cos > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:59PM, Evans Ye wrote: >> I have no concern if we can get the ignite 1.2 patch in quickly . :) >> >> 2015-07-09 7:45 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: >> >>> BIGTOP-1907 seems to be in. One last question - any objection of bumping up >>> Ignite to 1.2 which got released just a couple of weeks ago? It has good >>> fixes >>> (what I've heard ;) >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Cos >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:07PM, Evans Ye wrote: >>>> Sorry to chime in late. >>>> Bigtop 1907 should be in so that bigtop toolchain can successfully >>> applied >>>> on openSUSE. The things I'm still concerning about is that we do not know >>>> whether openSUSE is OK to build Bigtop components. IIRC it have some >>>> problems. >>>> However, if we treat the words "supporting OSs" as OSs that can install >>> and >>>> run Bigtop instead of build. Then we should be ok now. I personally >>> prefer >>>> the latter unless SUSE expert can help to fix and unlock the release. :) >>>> 2015/7/2 上午6:50 於 "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> 寫道： >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Agree. It's super easy to push site updates any time after the >>> release is >>>>>> out. >>>>>> We are generating it our of the master anyway, so I see no reason to >>> hold >>>>>> 1.0 >>>>>> because of the website changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, shall I spin-out RC1 then? >>>>>> Cos >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:17AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >>>>>>> We can fix the site after the release. I agree it will be >>> important to >>>>>> get >>>>>>> the content up to date as close as possible to when the release >>> goes >>>>> out. >>>>>>> Are we doing svnpubsub? If so it should be straightforward to >>> update. >>>>> One >>>>>>> of us (maybe me) can regen while RC voting is underway and push >>> upon >>>>>>> release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hi cos, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks for asking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> two of the new commits were critical since last minute changes >>> broke >>>>>>>> compilation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no further technical Jiras waiting for inclusion into a 1.0 >>>>> tag. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I am missing one „huge“ commit: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Our web site is essentially a heap of obsolete stuff. Since the >>>>>> website is >>>>>>>> somehow generated from git, we should consolidate our site as >>> well >>>>>>>> reflecting the 1.0 release (for instance removing 0.8 information >>>>> from >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> frontpage). @all: Is there already any progress in this >>> direction? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> olaf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 01.07.2015 um 02:16 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik < >>> [email protected] >>>>>> : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have noticed that branch-1.0 is now having these three >>> committs: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 11dc343 BIGTOP-1893: Compilation of hadoop-yarn-client failed >>>>>>>>> edc881d BIGTOP-1902: typo in >>>>>>>> bigtop-deploy/vm/vagrant-puppet-vm/vagrantconfig.yaml >>>>>>>>> 885cd8f BIGTOP-1896. bigtop_toolchain broken bei ant update >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now I would have to update CHANGES.txt and RELEASE notes for >>> both >>>>>> master >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> the branch. To me, those weren't that critical to include into >>> the >>>>>>>> release, >>>>>>>>> but I guess it makes no harm. Any other changes we have to >>> hold the >>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> for? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Cos >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:14AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ok, master is unlocked for 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT development >>>>>>>>>> I have also pushed branch-1.0 that has all the bits for 1.0 >>> RC, >>>>> but >>>>>> I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> have time to finish RC publishing up right now - will try to >>> do it >>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> train, but who knows if I will have any connection there. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If anyone can pick up where I left-off - it'd be great: I am >>>>> really >>>>>>>> trying to >>>>>>>>>> get on my damn vacation ;) If not - I will try to find a bit >>> of >>>>> time >>>>>>>> next week >>>>>>>>>> for this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for your help, >>>>>>>>>> Cos >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:56AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The one hurdle I am facing though is that with BIGTOP-1833 >>>>> getting >>>>>>>> pushed to >>>>>>>>>>> the master (which I normally would appreciate ;) I have to >>> fiddle >>>>>> with >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>> local branches as they already had a commit for this fix. >>> Now, >>>>>>>> rebasing it >>>>>>>>>>> locally presents an issue where I need to fix some unpleasant >>>>>>>> conflicts in... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh well, it will be done in a bit. >>>>>>>>>>> Cos >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:37PM, Evans Ye wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I've committed the BIGTOP-1833 patch. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's so exciting that we're at the moment ready to release >>>>> bigtop >>>>>> 1.0. >>>>>>>>>>>> Please ping me if any help needed for release. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Evans >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-05-29 17:52 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik < >>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have made all preparations for 1.0 RC and changed >>> everything >>>>> we >>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT in the master. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, because BIGTOP-1833 hasn't been reviewed yet, I >>>>>> evidently >>>>>>>> haven't >>>>>>>>>>>>> pushed this change and other commits to the master nor >>>>>> branch-1.0. I >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>> unblock me immediately if someone can review BIGTOP-1833 >>>>> changes. >>>>>>>> Then >>>>>>>>>>>>> patch >>>>>>>>>>>>> is rather trivial and I have tested it to make sure that >>> the >>>>>>>> packages are >>>>>>>>>>>>> produced. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd love to switch off to the vacation mode by the end of >>> the >>>>> day >>>>>>>> today but >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to wrap up the RC process (at least the branch >>> preparation >>>>>> part) >>>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. So if someone in Europe (during the day here) or >>> later in >>>>>> NA >>>>>>>> can do >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>> at your early convenience - it'd be just great! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cos >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:03PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, working on BIGTOP-1851 right now. Please pardon the >>>>>> delay, I >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>> sick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the weekend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Andrew - hopefully are doing better now! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Purtell < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool, I went over to BIGTOP-1615 and it's already >>> resolved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for BIGTOP-1827, if it's just a package naming >>> problem we >>>>>> can >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rename it, right? See my comment on the issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are in the good shape to cut-off 1.0 branch >>>>>> tonight. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> have ran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full stack build on Ubuntu and everything is building >>> fine >>>>>> now. >>>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>>>>>> course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing needs to be done ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One last unresolved blocker is BIGTOP-1827. If I don't >>> hear >>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tachyon component's maintainers I will have to remove >>> this >>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 because the packages are broken and we can release >>> them >>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIGTOP-1615 (another blocker) is in PA state, so if >>> anyone >>>>>> can >>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it'd be great! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cos >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting >>>>> back. - >>>>>>>> Piet >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting >>> back. >>>>> - >>>>>> Piet >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >>>>> Hein >>>>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> - Andy >>>>> >>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >>> Hein >>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>> >>>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
