Correct
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)