The proposal is good to me as well. Should we start a vote on this? Or we can just start to do it if no one is objecting?
Best, Hao On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Vamsee Yarlagadda <vam...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > Cherry-pick any commits that happened since sentry-ha-redesign was > forked, > > except a few described below > > Exclude big refactoring commit (SENTRY-1205) and related commits > > (SENTRY-1436, SENTRY-1438, SENTRY-1406) > > Rename master to a dev branch > > Rename sentry-ha-redesign to master > > > This sounds good to me. Generally having merge commits complicates the git > history and might get tricky when we are debugging things. I would rather > stick with the approach of cherry-picks to make the history clear. > > Thanks, > Vamsee > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > I would like to make a more concrete proposal and I am interested in > > opinion from Sentry PMC members on this. > > > > I would propose the following approach for merging Sentry HA into Sentry > > master: > > > > Cherry-pick any commits that happened since sentry-ha-redesign was > forked, > > except a few described below > > Exclude big refactoring commit (SENTRY-1205) and related commits > > (SENTRY-1436, SENTRY-1438, SENTRY-1406) > > Rename master to a dev branch > > Rename sentry-ha-redesign to master > > > > What does community think about such approach? > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I would like to start the discussion on merging sentry-ha-redesign > > branch with master. > > > > > > As of now most of the changes from master are merged into > > sentry-ha-redesign. The major missing part is SENTRY-1205 (Refactor the > > code for sentry-provider-db and create sentry-service module) and > > associated issues. This refactoring is very hard to port, especially > since > > there is very little information in the JIRA on why it was done and how > it > > was done - was it merely moving files around or more then that. I would > > seriously consider not including this change in 1.8. > > > > > > So in regards to the merge we have several options: > > > > > > Attempt to merge master into sentry-ha-redesign, resolve any conflicts > > and later commit the merge to master. This will cause merge commit on > master > > > Finish work on sentry-ha-redesign, make sure that relevant commits are > > ported from master, and then making this a master branch and making > current > > master a special branch left for reference purposes. This will likely > leave > > SENTRY-1205 and related issues out. > > > What does community think about this? > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Vamsee >
