This makes sense to me. In this mode, for 2.x-only changes and for changes on 3.0 that don't apply cleanly, there will be a manual way to do the step labelled "1. Cherrypick tool", and that way is the same way we send patches for review now, but pushing to HEAD:refs/for/2.x rather than HEAD:refs/for/master, yes?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >>
