Hi, For those of us who only clone repository and pull for development, the only external impact is that trunk branch is gone, and now it is called master. Is this correct?
$ git remote show origin * remote origin Fetch URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase.git Push URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase.git ... master tracked refs/remotes/origin/trunk stale (use 'git remote prune' to remove) On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > INFRA-7800 has been resolved - trunk branch is gone. > > +1 to Ram's suggestion. > > On May 24, 2014, at 12:05 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> 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 <apurt...@apache.org > >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 <anoop.hb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> 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 >
