Picture: https://gist.github.com/philz/323c8b4cb411dc12eb7231d922c1951f#file-impala-branch-image-pdf
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > Often, this list seems to filter out images. Could you post it and send a > link? > > Thanks for taking this on, Phil! > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think most patches go to Gerrit branch 'master', which happens to > > identify itself as 3.0. (Or 3.x?). > > > > Here's a picture: > > > > [image: Inline image 1] > > > > > > With this, every time "cherrypick_and_push_to_asf.py" is run, it would > > first offer to cherrypick changes between master and 2.x. Then, it would > > offer push those cherrypicks to gerrit/2.x. After that, it continues on > as > > before and offers to push changes to ASF. I think this maintains the > > invariant that pushing to ASF is only done with a human trigger. (We > could > > also have step 1 be done by a Jenkins robot, since it's between Gerrit > and > > Gerrit.) > > > > I looked at the How to Release page, and the main difference would be > > that, for a 2.x release, the $COMMIT_HASH_YOU_CHOSE would come from the > 2.x > > branch, as would any cherrypicks. > > > > Does this match what you're thinking? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- Philip > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> 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%20in > >> clude-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. > >> >> > >> > > > > >
