INFRA-7800 has been resolved - trunk branch is gone. +1 to Ram's suggestion.
On May 24, 2014, at 12:05 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a small suggestion > In the doc http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow > > it says > Develop and commit the patch against trunk/master first > > I think we could update this clearly saying 'master'. The stmt seems as if > we could commit to either of those. May be it is only me but I feel better > to change it. > > Regards > Ram > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> In addition I'd recommend not using a git repo that was cloned from the old >> read only mirror of SVN. >> >> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Anoop John <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You have to commit to master. This is the svn trunk. >>> >>> -Anoop- >>> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Anoop- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also have done trunk first then cherry >> pick >>>> to >>>>>>>>> branches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis >>> Söztutar >>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
