Which gerrit branch were you thinking most patches would go to? If they go to 3.0, then push_to_asf.py would have to be amended to push to gerrit, bypassing code review. I think that's possible, but I'm not 100%.
There is also security to think about, since the push_to_asf.py users can push a few commits at a time, including ones they didn't author or review. We'll also want to clarify https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/How+to+Release and keep it consistent with the git & gerrit statuses quo. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! > >> Should we start tagging all candidates with a common label, e.g. > include-in-v3? > > I agree with Lars's suggestion for tagging JIRAs with include-in-v3. I've > done so, and the relevant query is > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%20include-in-v3%20and%20project%3Dimpala > . > >> What sort of process were you thinking of for the automation? > > I think amending push_to_asf.py, as you suggest, is a great idea. I think > we have a string ("not for 2.x") which can be used in commit messages to > discourage the cherrypick for the changes we want to be exclusive until we > want to change the defaults in the other direction. (I.e., right now the > string is "not for 2.x", but at some point the string may be "should be > cherrypicked to 2.x".) > > I do think that we want to create a gerrit branch to allow 2.x-only changes > to be reviewed in the straight-forward fashion. > > -- Philip > > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm on-board with all of this. (I also would be OK delaying 3.0, if >> that were the consensus). >> >> There is one issue in here I think we should dive into: >> >> > Both master and 2.x would be active, and, at least for the beginning, >> > changes would automatically be pulled into the 2.x line, unless >> explicitly >> > blacklisted. >> >> What sort of process were you thinking of for the automation? >> >> Some context, starting from what we all likely already know: >> >> The bulk of the code review and pre-merge testing results are recorded >> in gerrit. Once the pre-merge testing passes, a patch is cherry-picked >> to the git repo hosted with gerrit. To get the patch to the Impala git >> repo hosted by the ASF, bin/push_to_asf.py is run by a human who >> supplies his or her ASF credentials. That script copies the commit to >> the ASF git repo. >> >> Often, 2-3 commits will pile up in gerrit before some committer runs >> that script and pushes them to ASF. >> >> We could edit that script (bin/push_to_asf.py) to help with the cherry >> picks, so that each time a commit is made, the committer must say >> whether the commit goes in 2.x, 3.0, or both, but the commits are >> often made by people who didn't author the patches, so they may not be >> sure which branch to go in. >> >> Additionally, gerrit code review is intimately tied to the git repo. >> Gerrit runs a git repo under-the-hood, and I believe that the branch >> on gerrit's git that changes are cherry-picked to after pre-merge >> testing is identical to the Impala git repo hosted by the ASF - down >> to the hashes, even. If we think 2.x and 3.0 will diverge enough that >> we'll want different code reviews for different branches, then we >> might want two different branches on gerrit, too. >>
