You have to commit to master. This is the svn trunk. -Anoop-
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also the log of the master branch and the trunk branch does not match. The > master seems to have more commits than the trunk. > > Regards > Ram > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:39 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I tried with a commit. > > Reading the new doc added, should we commit to master or trunk or is to > > both? > > I committed to trunk but the same does not come in the master. > > Also when i tried to merge my git clone that was pointing to the existing > > read only git repo is the udpates happening properly? A fetch/merge > almost > > took an entire update and did not merge properly leaving most of the > files > > in bad shape. > > > > Regards > > Ram > > > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkey...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> Can we now commit again, or is the migration still in progress? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Nicolas > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > >> > I added to the refguide here: > >> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow > >> > > >> > Also updated our build box references so point to git instead of svn. > >> > > >> > St.Ack > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks guys for checking. > >> > > > >> > > Can we at least agree on always using something like the following > >> flow > >> > for > >> > > checking in for now: > >> > > - Commit the patch to trunk. > >> > > - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible > >> > > - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch. > >> > > > >> > > If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should > >> > > cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc. > >> > > > >> > > Enis > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > What Andy said. > >> > > > > >> > > > I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for above > >> > commits). > >> > > > I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy. > >> > > > > >> > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell < > >> apurt...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to > >> dev@ > >> > . > >> > > I > >> > > > > suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine. So I > >> guess > >> > > > it's > >> > > > > open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks > >> to > >> > > have > >> > > > > waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file > >> > contents > >> > > > were > >> > > > > good. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John < > >> anoop.hb...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Anoop- > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell < > >> > > apurt...@apache.org > >> > > > > > >wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was > in > >> > > > > progress?? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu < > yuzhih...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Andrew: > >> > > > > > > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4icorresponds > >> to > >> > > > > > > HBASE-11219 > >> > > > > > > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FYI > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell < > >> > > > apurt...@apache.org > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these > look > >> > > fine. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN > checkouts > >> and > >> > > Git > >> > > > > > > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that > >> did > >> > > not > >> > > > > make > >> > > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > > > over to Git looks like. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 0.96: Good! > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 0.94: Good! > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 0.89-fb: Good! > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack < > st...@duboce.net > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks T. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The trunk test is still running fine. Checkout local > >> looks > >> > > > good > >> > > > > > too. > >> > > > > > > > I > >> > > > > > > > > > tried a branch. It seems right too. Asking about > >> > > discrepancy > >> > > > in > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > tag > >> > > > > > > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA > issue.git. > >> > > > Working > >> > > > > > on > >> > > > > > > > file > >> > > > > > > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts.... Will report > back. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu < > >> > > yuzhih...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and > triggered > >> a > >> > > > build. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > So far the tests are running fine. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > FYI > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu < > >> > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ran mvn package. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ran some tests. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Checked 'git log' > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Looks Okay. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack < > >> > st...@duboce.net > >> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Migration looks done: > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there. I was > >> going > >> > to > >> > > > > check > >> > > > > > > > later > >> > > > > > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, > >> that'd be > >> > > > > grand. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> St.Ack > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell < > >> > > > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick > to > >> > > > branches. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar > < > >> > > > > > > > > enis....@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > crew). On feature branches, lets see. > >> Squash > >> > if > >> > > > > messy > >> > > > > > > > > history > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> (most > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > cases?)? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. > We > >> > > > wanted a > >> > > > > > > > smooth > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> merge, so > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit > >> > traces > >> > > > to a > >> > > > > > > jira > >> > > > > > > > > > (with > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > reviews > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > etc). > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be > >> > pushed > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > main > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> repo, I > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > think we should > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a > >> working > >> > > > branch > >> > > > > > > with > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> less-clean > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > history, there is > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] > >> > > > (ignoring > >> > > > > > > where > >> > > > > > > > > > their > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > branching > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed > >> by > >> > the > >> > > > > Kafka > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> contributors > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in > >> > doubt, > >> > > > do > >> > > > > as > >> > > > > > > > we've > >> > > > > > > > > > > done > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> in > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for > hadoopqa > >> > run. > >> > > > Dump > >> > > > > > dev > >> > > > > > > > > pains > >> > > > > > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets > >> keep > >> > > this > >> > > > > > > thread > >> > > > > > > > > > alive > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> with > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our > >> > > (suggested) > >> > > > > > > > > solutions. > >> > > > > > > > > > As > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> our > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > practice diverges from that outline in docs > >> > above, > >> > > > > lets > >> > > > > > > note > >> > > > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > > > > add > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > doc > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > locally? > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > +1 for a local doc. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I like both of the documents. Kafka does not > >> touch > >> > > on > >> > > > > > merge > >> > > > > > > > > > between > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > branches at all. I used to do > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the > other > >> > > > branches > >> > > > > > (if > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> applicable) > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > otherwise create a different patch and commit > >> > > approach > >> > > > > > > rather > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > than merges across release branches. This is > >> more > >> > > > > similar > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > our > >> > > > > > > > > > svn > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > model. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I think for existing release branches, the > >> merge > >> > is > >> > > > out > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > > > question > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> (if I > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > understand this correctly). We always did > >> > > trunk-first > >> > > > > than > >> > > > > > > > > > > cherry-pick > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > into > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > branches approach, while Accumulo suggests > >> that we > >> > > do > >> > > > > > > earlier > >> > > > > > > > > > branch > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > first, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > then merge into master. Since I don't have > >> > > experience > >> > > > on > >> > > > > > > this, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > not sure whether that will work for us or > not. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I need to heads-up our FB brothers and > >> sisters > >> > > > too.... > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 1. http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Patch+submission+and+review#Patchsubmissionandreview-Simplecontributorworkflow > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Perhaps this has some useful formulae: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://git-scm.com/book/en/Customizing-Git-An-Example-Git-Enforced-Policy > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Talat > >> > Uyarer < > >> > > > > > > > > > > ta...@uyarer.com> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Good news :) > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 21 May 2014 08:05 tarihinde "Stack" < > >> > > > > > st...@duboce.net > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > yazdı: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SVN has been flipped read-only. The > >> > > migration > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > git > >> > > > > > > > > has > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > started. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > See > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7768 > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:56 PM, > Stack > >> < > >> > > > > > > > > st...@duboce.net> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:48 PM, > >> Talat > >> > > > Uyarer > >> > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > ta...@uyarer.com> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hi All, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I created an issue for our git > >> > migrating. > >> > > > [0] > >> > > > > > We > >> > > > > > > > can > >> > > > > > > > > > > follow > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > our > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> migration status. Fyi > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thank you Talat, > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > -- > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > 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) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
