An update here! I'm pretty close to pushing the first master-only change (the very exciting 1-liner at https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/9044/ that bumps versions). After that, I'll be cherrypicking things into 2.x.
We need a policy, I think, on reviewing these cherry-picks. The most heavy-weight would be to do Gerrit and run-tests-before-merge for every change. The least heavy would be to review only when the cherry-picks aren't clean. Are people comfortable with the less heavy policy? Specifically, I propose that clean cherrypicks from master to 2.x can be pushed without additional review. Thanks! -- Philip On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Philip Zeyliger <[email protected]> wrote: > It sounds like we've reached consensus, so I'm starting to maneuver this > along. Please don't hesitate if you've got concerns. You can follow along > at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6410. > > The first two reviews are out at: > > remote: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/9044 Bumping version to 3.0. > remote: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/9045 IMPALA-6410: Tool to > cherrypick changes across branches. > > I've created the branches on Gerrit and Apache as follows: > > # This created the branch on gerrit.cloudera.org > $ssh -p 29418 [email protected] gerrit create-branch Impala-ASF > 2.x master > > # This created the branch on the Apache git server: > $git push apache asf-gerrit/2.x:refs/heads/2.x > Username for 'https://git-wip-us.apache.org': philz > Password for 'https://[email protected]': > Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) > To https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/impala.git > * [new branch] asf-gerrit/2.x -> 2.x > > # Double-check: > $git-ls-remote apache | grep 2.x; git-ls-remote asf-gerrit | grep 2.x > 6cc76d72016b8d5672676e8e8a979b0807803ad9 refs/heads/2.x > 6cc76d72016b8d5672676e8e8a979b0807803ad9 refs/heads/2.x > > # push_to_asf learned of the branch "magically" > $bin/push_to_asf.py > INFO:root:Fetching from remote 'asf-gerrit'... > INFO:root:done > Branch '2.x': up to date > Branch 'asf-site': up to date > Branch 'branch-2.10.0': found on Apache but not in gerrit > Branch 'branch-2.11.0': found on Apache but not in gerrit > Branch 'branch-2.7.0': found on Apache but not in gerrit > Branch 'branch-2.8.0': found on Apache but not in gerrit > Branch 'branch-2.9.0': found on Apache but not in gerrit > Branch 'hadoop-next': up to date > Branch 'master': up to date > > -- Philip > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Alexander Behm <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Taras Bobrovytsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Lars Volker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Philip Zeyliger <[email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi folks! >> > > > >> > > > It sounds like there haven't been objections to having master be >> "3.0" >> > > and >> > > > introducing a 2.x branch. Would folks be alright if I started making >> > > > changes in that direction? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks! >> > > > >> > > > -- Philip >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Philip Zeyliger < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> 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? >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > Exactly. So, non-clean cherrypicks or 2.x-only changes go through >> > > review >> > > > > on Gerrit, but we give an implicit review pass to clean >> cherrypicks. >> > > > > >> > > > > We could have the cherrypick tool between gerrit/master and >> > gerrit/2.x >> > > do >> > > > > the cherrypicks and run the tests on Jenkins. Do you think that's >> > > > > preferable? >> > > > > >> > > > > -- Philip >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Philip Zeyliger < >> > [email protected] >> > > > >> > > > >> wrote: >> > > > >> > Picture: >> > > > >> > https://gist.github.com/philz/323c8b4cb411dc12eb7231d922c195 >> > > > >> 1f#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. >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
