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)

Reply via email to