I went back and looked at PUP-3 and it does lay out some of the items @pcreech mentions although at a higher, more general level. I’ll leave the document as is unless someone disagrees.
With that in mind, let's go ahead and vote on PUP-3. We’ll end the voting on October 8th which is about 10 days away. To refresh everyone’s memory, voting is outlined in PUP-1: https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#voting And here’s the PUP in question: https://github.com/daviddavis/pups/blob/pup3/pup-0003.md Please respond to this thread with your vote or any comments/questions. David On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks @pcreech for all the comments. I also believe that switching to a > cherry-picking model will provide many benefits. > > As a general FYI, the way PUP-3 is written, it allows us to adopt it > (assuming it passes at vote) and then figure out how to roll it out later > in coordination w/ release engineering. > > @daviddavis, should we start casting votes or should we wait for you to > declare it open after maybe pushing an update? > > Thanks! > Brian > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Patrick, >> >> Thanks for the feedback. I’d like to update PUP-3 in the next couple days >> with the pain points you mention. >> >> Also, I’d love the idea of having some tooling that tells us exactly >> which commits to cherry pick into which release branch. I think we should >> have this in place before we switch to cherry-picking if we decide to go >> that route. >> >> >> David >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Patrick Creech <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Since I was one of the early voices against cherrypicking during the >>> initial vote, I figured I'd send this e-mail along with some points that >>> have helped me be in favor of cherry picking before voting >>> starts. >>> >>> In taking over the release engineering process, I have gained some >>> perspective on our current situation and have found Cherrypicking to be an >>> enticing concept for pulp. Most notably, these are the >>> things I ran into during the release process for 2.13.4 that caused some >>> headaches and frustrations. >>> >>> Firstly, we had an issue come up with the Pulp Docker 2 line that does >>> not exist with the new Pulp Docker 3 line. Dockerhub V2 Schema2 has some >>> manifest issues that cause syncs in the Pulp Docker 2 >>> line to fail. A change specific to this issue was created and merged to >>> the 2.4-dev branch. It's only application is the 2 line, but to satisfy >>> our current tooling and policy, this change had to be >>> merged forward through 3.0-dev and to Master, where it no longer applies >>> and the code no longer exists in this form. I took great care to verify >>> that no code changes happened on 3.0-dev and master, >>> but there is the window open for issues here. >>> >>> Another issue that happened is when issues that are merged from a -dev >>> branch aren't merged forward. In this case, two issues that landed on the >>> most recent -dev branch weren't merged forward along >>> to master before a helper script was ran. When this helper script ran, >>> it was ran with the merge strategy of "ours" to ensure it's changes don't >>> persist forward. When "ours" is used, conflicting >>> changes are automatically dropped from the source branch to the >>> destination branch. This caused the code for these two changes to >>> dissapear on the master branch, while their commit hashes were there >>> in the history. I had to cherry-pick these changes forward to master >>> from the branch they landed on to ensure the modified code exists. >>> >>> And lastly, since 2.13.4 was a 2.13.z release that was done after 2.14.0 >>> went out, changes had to be cherry-picked back from 2.14-dev to 2.13-dev. >>> Since the hash changed, these changes yet again had >>> to be merged forward to 2.14-dev and then Master, even though they >>> already existed in these branches, thus helping to pollute the repo history >>> further with more duplication. >>> >>> While a large portion of these issues can be attributed to the merge >>> forward everything policy, I have been in talks with other teams that >>> follow a cherrypicking strategy about their workflow since >>> I'm in the process of revamping pulp's release engineering process. >>> Something that caught my attention as beneficial is a team's strategy that >>> everything goes on master, and with some automated >>> tooling and bookeeping in their issue tracker they can identify what >>> cherrypicks need to be pulled back to the release branch and spit out a >>> command for the release engineer to run to do the >>> cherrypicks. The release engineer resolves any conflicts, and then puts >>> up a PR to merge into the release branch so the work goes through the >>> normal testing + review process. >>> >>> >>> In short, at this point I have come to believe that switching to a >>> cherry-pick model will allow us greater flexibility and accuracy in >>> ensuring our releases contain what we want them to contain, and >>> don't contain what we don't want. With tooling, it should also help >>> simplify ensuring the right things get put in the right places. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
