I use something like this to check what tags contain a particular fix: git tag --contains $(git log --grep <JIRA> -1 --format="%h" master)
True, it's a bit longer, but it stays in the bash/zsh history :) Cheers Dan On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> wrote: > If you can't merge a commit (based on 9.0.x) to master clearly, do you > need to file another PR anyway? Then the lag to get some code to master > increases a lot. I am not sure how useful is git tag --contains <sha1> > if you cannot be sure that you'll find all occurrences due to this kind > of issues. > > R. > > On 03/27/2017 11:33 AM, Sebastian Laskawiec wrote: >> Hey! >> >> We are about to start working on 9.1.x and 9.2.y branches so I would >> like to propose alternative merging strategy. >> >> Our current workflow looks like this: >> >> X - new commit >> X` - cherry pick to maintenance branch >> --+-------------------+-------X----- master >> | \------X`---- 9.2.x >> \---------------------------X``--- 9.1.x >> >> Each commit needs to be reviewed in master branch and backported to >> the maintenance branches. From maintenance perspective this is a bit >> painful, since in above example we need to get 3 times through PR >> queue. Also it's worth to mention that X is not X` nor X``. >> Cherry-picking creates a copy of a commit. This makes some useful >> tricks (like git tag --contains <sha1>) a bit harder to use. Finally, >> this approach allows the codebase to diverge from maintenance branches >> very fast (someone might just forget to backport some of the >> refactoring stuff). >> >> The proposal: >> >> X, Y - new commits >> / - merge commits >> --+---------+------/----/--- master >> | \----/---Y/---- 9.2.x >> \-------------X/---------- 9.1.x >> >> With the proposal, a developer should always implement a given feature >> in the lowest possible maintenance branch. Then we will run a set of >> merges from 9.1.x into 9.2.x and finally into master. The biggest >> advantage of this approach is that given functionality (identified by >> a commit) will have the same SHA1 for all branches. This will allow >> all tools like (mentioned before) `git tag --contains <sha1>` to work. >> There are also some further implications of this approach: >> >> * Merging commits should be performed very often (even automatically >> in the night (if merged without any problems)). >> * After releasing each maintenance release, someone will need to do >> a merge with strategy `ours` (`git merge -s ours upstream/9.2.x`). >> This way we will not have to solve version conflicts in poms. >> * Since there is no nice way to rebase a merge commit, they should >> be pushed directly into the master branch (without review, without >> CI). After the merge, HEAD will change and CI will >> automatically pick the build. Remember, merges should be done very >> often. So I assume there won't be any problems most of the times. >> * Finally, with this approach the code diverges slight slower (at >> least from my experience). Mainly because we don't need to >> remember to cherry-pick individual commits. They are automatically >> "taken" by a merge. >> >> From my past experience, this strategy works pretty nice and can be >> almost fully automated. It significantly lowers the maintenance pain >> around cherry-picks. However there is nothing for free, and we would >> need to get used to pushing merged directly into master (which is fine >> to me but some of you might not like it). >> >> Thanks, >> Sebastian >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > -- > Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> > JBoss Performance Team > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev