hi David It appears we can't push reverted commits to trunk from our local repository. See the following error message.
remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (15/15), completed with 11 local objects. remote: error: GH006: Protected branch update failed for refs/heads/trunk. remote: remote: - Changes must be made through a pull request. remote: remote: - Required status check "build / CI checks completed" is expected. To github.com:apache/kafka.git ... Does this mean we must revert code via pull requests in the future? Best, Chia-Ping On 2025/03/06 04:30:22 David Arthur wrote: > Ok looks like Infra’s manual GitHub config change got undone. I see that > this PR https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19120 is approved, but can't > be merged :( > > I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-26601, hopefully > someone gets to it soon. > > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 23:19 David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The up-to-date requirement should not be there (for the reasons you > > mentioned). There was a bug with the Infra asf.yaml parser, so Infra > > manually removed the up-to-date requirement. > > > > If the checks all pass and the PR is approved, it should be mergeable > > up-to-date or not. Let me know if this isn’t the case. > > > > Prior to the PR being approved, the UI looks like it will force you to > > merge in trunk, but it shouldn’t. > > > > David A > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 21:58 Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> hi David > >> > >> Thank you for this protection, and I fully agree that we need to avoid > >> exceptional merges as much as possible. > >> > >> For another, It seems we also require PRs to be up-to-date, which is good. > >> However, the side effect is cache misses. I recall you've done a lot of > >> work on improving the cache, so I'm wondering if this protection conflicts > >> with cache usage. > >> > >> Best, > >> Chia-Ping > >> > >> David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月6日 週四 上午4:07寫道： > >> > >> > We had a hiccup today where a PR was merged due to a false positive "All > >> > checks have passed" message in the UI. This message was displayed > >> because > >> > the labelling workflows had run and were successful. So, really the > >> message > >> > was correct -- all checks that had been run were successful. The problem > >> > was, our CI was not among the checks that had run. > >> > > >> > This incident pointed out a deficiency in our PR workflow. Essentially, > >> we > >> > have to remember to set the "ci-approved" label and we need to ensure > >> that > >> > the CI checks are among the "passed" status checks before merging. > >> > > >> > To remedy this, I've added a branch protection for trunk which defines a > >> > required status check "build / CI checks completed". This check is set > >> by a > >> > job that runs at the end of our CI workflow. This means we cannot merge > >> a > >> > PR unless the CI has run. > >> > > >> > Likely this means *all extant PRs need to merge in trunk* to run this > >> new > >> > "CI checks completed" job. Sorry for the noise, but I figured it was > >> best > >> > to rip the bandaid off now... > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > David A > >> > > >> > P.S., I also added our release branches as protected branches, but did > >> not > >> > add any branch protections rules. This was done to prevent forced > >> pushing > >> > to these branches which we honestly should have done long ago. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > David Arthur > >> > > >> > > >
