I've add a section in "how to contribute" to describe how to commit patch
in both master and release branch.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BIGTOP/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ForCommitters:howtocommitapatchinbothmasterandreleasebranch

Feel free to update/correct it directly. :)

Thanks,
Evans





2015-07-18 13:21 GMT+08:00 Evans Ye <[email protected]>:

> OK, then we better have this updated on Committer's wiki.
> Olaf's workflow.sh is a good demonstration, just need to indicate which
> the source branch is.
>
> I just discovered that my cwiki account got locked so I'm currently
> approaching apache infra.
> Will update if no one before me. :)
>
>
> 2015-07-16 6:14 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>:
>
>> Yup, I believe this is wht I am saying. The fix-branch (in this particular
>> case, as new features shouldn't be added to old releases, IMO) should be
>> derived from the "least common denominator" branch to make both merges as
>> seamless as possible.
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:29AM, Evans Ye wrote:
>> > Since I'm one of the "author" of the current 1.0 branch, I'd like to
>> join
>> > the discussion and make sure whether I get it right.
>> >
>> > It looks like the the proposed approach is to replace cherry-pick by
>> > creating a feature branch and merge that branch into branches we'd like
>> to
>> > have the fix.
>> >
>> > If we're going this approach, then the feature branch should be derived
>> > from the targeted back port branch. For example, if patch A is getting
>> in
>> > both branch-1.0 and master, then we should create a feature branch from
>> 1.0
>> > name branch-A, and add patch A on top of branch-A, and then merge
>> branch-A
>> > into branch-1.0 and master, respectively.
>> >
>> > Basically, the above is what I concluded from your discussion. Is this
>> the
>> > same as what you're thinking?
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-07-15 22:34 GMT+08:00 Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]>:
>> >
>> > > Cos,
>> > >
>> > > > Evidently, "is not mutable" and "shouldn't be moved" are two very
>> > > different
>> > > > properties.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, you are right.
>> > >
>> > > > What github does for their releases is of no relevance to us,.
>> > >
>> > > You are right, but I would like to mention we use this in bigtop.mk,
>> too.
>> > >
>> > > HUE_SITE=https://github.com/cloudera/hue/archive
>> > > DATAFU_SITE=https://github.com/linkedin/datafu/archive
>> > > TACHYON_SITE=https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive
>>
>> > >
>> > > I would pledge for putting an tag release-1.0.0  on the release
>> commit .
>> > > Like we did before.
>> > >
>> > > >> I doubt you can move a tag once it is pushed to the apache
>> repository
>> > > (since
>> > > >> a force push is not possible, too), but we may try ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Tag is a pointer to a git object. The pointer could be deleted,
>> > > recreated and
>> > > > pushed again: no force-push is needed for that.
>> > >
>> > > That is evidently not true:
>> > >
>> > > $ git tag -d olaf
>> > > Deleted tag 'olaf' (was 6fd647e)
>> > > $ git tag olaf HEAD~3
>> > > $ git push lr --tags
>> > > ...
>> > >  ! [rejected]        olaf -> olaf (already exists)
>> > > error: failed to push some refs to '.....'
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Besides, force-push isn't disabled on Apache repos (except for
>> master
>> > > branch).
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, we can do whatever we want with the branches.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Didn't know that. Now I am beginning to understand your point ...
>> > >
>> > > I wrote an example workflow  (see attachement) . I would propose to
>> add
>> > > this example (if it is correct)  to the developer guidelines in the
>> wiki.
>> > >
>> > > Management summary: We should be careful not to apply changes
>> affecting
>> > > both release and master directly to one of these branches. Use a fix
>> branch
>> > > instead and merge it to both master and release branch.
>> > >
>> > > Using github pull request seems equivalent to this workflow, btw.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks all for your patience, over and out.
>> > >    Olaf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to