What are we doing about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6302?
I think they're afraid of messing things up for us. Does someone want to answer his questions? (I'm not sure what the correct approach is...) On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > Let's see how quickly they react to the new ticket. > > Braden > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > My intuition is we'll need to bump the infra guys on irc.. > > > > On 6/10/13 1:16 PM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > >Since it's been nearly two weeks with no movement despite a bump, I've > > >closed the old INFRA ticket and opened a new one[1] stating that we > intend > > >to move forward with option 2. > > > > > >Braden > > > > > >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6374 > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Braden Shepherdson > > ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > > > > > >> Waiting on INFRA. I've already told them that we want to go with 2. > > >> > > >> Braden > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I'm fine with option 2, lets get this done. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > SGTM > > >>> > > > >>> > On 6/4/13 10:44 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > >I did some experimenting on my local disk to see what would happen > > >>>if > > >>> we > > >>> > >did go with option 2. It's pretty sane and safe: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >- If someone re-clones as requested, all is well. > > >>> > > > > >>> > >- If someone doesn't re-clone, then there are two cases: > > >>> > > - Merging the old local master against the new remote master: > > >>> Massive > > >>> > >conflicts; should remind people that there was something about > this > > >>> repo. > > >>> > > - Pushing the old local master to the new remote master: Fails > > >>> because > > >>> > >it's not a fast-forward merge. > > >>> > > > > >>> > >So that's pretty okay. It would take real effort to resolve these > > >>> > >conflicts > > >>> > >and try to push the result. No one is likely to do that, and they > > >>>still > > >>> > >can't cause lasting damage unless it's a committer. All the > > >>>committers > > >>> are > > >>> > >aware of this problem, and getting that huge conflict is likely to > > >>> remind > > >>> > >them of this. > > >>> > > > > >>> > >Braden > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > >On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >> Thanks for taking that on Braden > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> On 6/3/13 10:15 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >I've bumped the INFRA ticket[1], I'll keep this thread up to > date > > >>> with > > >>> > >>any > > >>> > >> >changes there. > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> >Braden > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> >On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> > wrote: > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Option 2! Let's move forward and get this sorted. > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> On 5/29/13 1:17 PM, "Jesse MacFadyen" < > purplecabb...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> > >>wrote: > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >I am liking option 2 now. Seems easy enough. > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >Cheers, > > >>> > >> >> > Jesse > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >Sent from my iPhone5 > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >On 2013-05-29, at 9:06 AM, Michal Mocny < > mmo...@chromium.org> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >For the record, I don't mind a reclone, so long as there are > > >>>no > > >>> > >> >>negative > > >>> > >> >> >repercussions, ie, (1) its not called master2 and (2) there > > >>>is no > > >>> > >>way > > >>> > >> >>for > > >>> > >> >> >anyone to shoot us in the foot if they forget to re-clone > > >>> properly > > >>> > >>and > > >>> > >> >> >start doing merges/pushes/whatever. > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >So, if (2) fails loudly thats my preference. Otherwise, I > > >>>don't > > >>> > >>mind > > >>> > >> >>(4) > > >>> > >> >> >but others might, and I hate (3) more than (1) :) > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >-Michal > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Braden Shepherdson > > >>> > >> >> ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > > >>> > >> >> > > > >>> > >> >> >> This would be an example of "continuing to pay the price > for > > >>> not > > >>> > >> >>being > > >>> > >> >> >> willing to re-clone 1, 3, 6, 12 months ago." We can avoid > > >>>all > > >>> of > > >>> > >>that > > >>> > >> >> >> nonsense with three lines. > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> Braden > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Michal Mocny > > >>> > >><mmo...@chromium.org> > > >>> > >> >> >> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >>> Can we go with (1) and still keep master2 around (perhaps > > >>> rename > > >>> > >>it > > >>> > >> >>to > > >>> > >> >> >>> something sensible) so that we can still get full history > > >>>but > > >>> > >>with > > >>> > >> >>one > > >>> > >> >> >>> level of indirection: > > >>> > >> >> >>> - The mega commit could have a commit message such as > "THIS > > >>> WAS A > > >>> > >> >>HACKY > > >>> > >> >> >>> MERGE, FOR REAL HISTORY LOOK IN THE OLD_FUTURE BRANCH" > > >>> > >> >> >>> - When you bit blame and see that as the commit > > >>>responsible, > > >>> you > > >>> > >> >>know > > >>> > >> >> >>>you > > >>> > >> >> >>> have to git blame again in the other branch > > >>> > >> >> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>> -Michal > > >>> > >> >> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ian Clelland > > >>> > >> >><iclell...@google.com> > > >>> > >> >> >>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>> SInce 2 and 3 both require re-cloning the repository, > I'd > > >>> much > > >>> > >> >>rather > > >>> > >> >> >> go > > >>> > >> >> >>>> with 2, and rename the branches appropriately. > > >>> > >> >> >>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Brian LeRoux > > >>><b...@brian.io> > > >>> > >>wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> ya the rename easiest > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Braden Shepherdson < > > >>> > >> >> >>> bra...@chromium.org > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> I'll keep this thread up to date with INFRA's > responses. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> I asked INFRA about options and their implications. > > >>>These > > >>> are > > >>> > >>the > > >>> > >> >> >>> four > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> options I described, after I was informed that our > > >>>original > > >>> > >> >>request > > >>> > >> >> >>>> would > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> actually require everyone to re-clone the repo. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 1. Check out master, delete all the files, copy in all > > >>>the > > >>> > >>files > > >>> > >> >> >>> from > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master2, check them all in. This keep the branching > the > > >>> same, > > >>> > >>and > > >>> > >> >> >> no > > >>> > >> >> >>>> one > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> would need to re-clone. But it also makes the history > > >>> nearly > > >>> > >> >> >> useless > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> before > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> that point. I dislike this option, but it's there. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 2. Rename master to old_master or similar, and rename > > >>> master2 > > >>> > >>to > > >>> > >> >> >>>> master. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Since everyone is re-cloning anyway, this is possible. > > >>> Keeps > > >>> > >>the > > >>> > >> >> >> name > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> consistent. This might be nasty if someone tries to > > >>>merge > > >>> > >>between > > >>> > >> >> >> an > > >>> > >> >> >>>> old > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master and the new master. Unless git can notice that > > >>> things > > >>> > >>are > > >>> > >> >> >>> wrong > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> they should re-clone. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 3. My original request to move HEAD. Exposes the > master2 > > >>> name > > >>> > >>and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> requires > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> everyone to use it. Still requires a re-clone. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 4. Abandon the repository and recreate it under a new > > >>>name, > > >>> > >> >>pushing > > >>> > >> >> >>>> only > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master2 as the new master. Requires a re-clone and > > >>>changing > > >>> > >>the > > >>> > >> >> >> name. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Probably not, but it's an option. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> What do people think? I'm most partial to 2, since it > > >>> > >>preserves > > >>> > >> >>the > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> master > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> name and it's hard to avoid recloning. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Braden > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jesse > > >>> > >><purplecabb...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >> >> >>>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> What is the resolution on this? > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> My opinion: History is in the past, move on. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I think it's okay if it is history is messy, or even > if > > >>> has a > > >>> > >> >>few > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> duplicate > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> commits. Tangles and all. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> @purplecabbage > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> risingj.com > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Braden Shepherdson < > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> bra...@chromium.org > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> I think so, but only if we're prepared to keep the > > >>> tangled > > >>> > >> >> >> history > > >>> > >> >> >>>> and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> duplicate about 30 commits. Several mistakes were > made > > >>> with > > >>> > >>the > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> branching > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> and rebasing of things on master, and there's a lot > of > > >>> > >> >> >> duplication > > >>> > >> >> >>>> and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> confusion in the history. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> When you get in this morning, I can show you the > > >>> whiteboard > > >>> > >> >> >>> diagram > > >>> > >> >> >>>> of > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> the > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> long version above, and then you can look at the > > >>> histories > > >>> > >>of > > >>> > >> >> >>> master > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master2 on GitX. I think you'll agree it's worth > > >>>moving > > >>> > >>forward > > >>> > >> >> >>> with > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master2. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Braden > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andrew Grieve < > > >>> > >> >> >>>> agri...@chromium.org > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Could we merge master2 into master with: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> git merge --strategy-option=theirs master2 > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Braden > Shepherdson < > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> bra...@chromium.org > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> tl;dr version: cordova-cli now has a master2 > branch > > >>> that > > >>> > >> >> >>> should > > >>> > >> >> >>>> be > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> treated > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> as master going forward. DO NOT use master or > future > > >>> > >> >> >> anymore. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Short version: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I tried to merge future and master. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I couldn't because the history is a train wreck. > > >>>The > > >>> > >> >> >>> morbidly > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> curious > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> should see [2]. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Ian and I dug through the history, and played > CSI > > >>> until > > >>> > >>we > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> figured > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> out > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> what had happened, and found a sensible way to > > >>> > >>reconstruct a > > >>> > >> >> >>>> sane > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> branch. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - This branch merged fairly neatly with future. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - It is now committed as the new branch master2. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - The original master branch is deprecated. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I have filed an INFRA ticket[1] to get them to > > >>>point > > >>> > >>HEAD > > >>> > >> >> >> at > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> master2, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> delete the old master branch. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Use master2 from now on. DO NOT touch the old > > >>>master > > >>> or > > >>> > >> >> >>> future > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branches > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> anymore. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'll keep the list updated on the state of the > INFRA > > >>> > >>ticket. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Braden > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6302 > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] Long version: > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> A long time ago, I forked cli's master to create > > >>> future. I > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> committed > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> a > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> half-dozen changes or so. Sometime later, a 2.7.x > > >>> branch > > >>> > >>was > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> forked > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> /from > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> future/. Several changes were made here. Later it > > >>>was > > >>> > >>merged > > >>> > >> >> >>>> back > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> in, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> /to > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> master/. The same changes were later rebased onto > > >>> master > > >>> > >>and > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> committed > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> again, duplicating them. Then this branch was > merged > > >>> with > > >>> > >> >> >>> master > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> again, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> creating a /third/ copy of the changes originally > > >>>from > > >>> > >>this > > >>> > >> >> >>>> 2.7.x > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branch. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, some of the changes from future were > > >>> reverted > > >>> > >>by > > >>> > >> >> >>> hand > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> (as > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> opposed to with git revert) in master. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finally some new changes were made to future and > > >>> master. > > >>> > >>It > > >>> > >> >> >>>> looks, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> according to git, like there are only these > changes > > >>>on > > >>> the > > >>> > >> >> >>>> future > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branch, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> since the earlier ones were merged by accident > some > > >>> time > > >>> > >> >> >> ago. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> When I came along and tried to merge master and > > >>>future > > >>> in > > >>> > >> >> >>> either > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> direction, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> or rebase in either direction, those older future > > >>> changes > > >>> > >> >> >>> stayed > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> deleted, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> because according to git they were made on the > same > > >>> > >>branch. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Moral of the story: Don't take a branch off master > > >>> (like > > >>> > >> >> >>>> future), > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> fork > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> it, > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> commit to it, and then merge it back to master. > > >>>That's > > >>> > >>what > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> started > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> most > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> of > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> the insanity, because now future is partially > merged > > >>> into > > >>> > >> >> >>> master > > >>> > >> >> >>>>> even > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> though it's not being treated that way. > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I need a drink. > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
