Re: Do not land code on blocked branches
Thanks for the update. I've closed the bug for now and we'll reopen an issue to update to the latest api version once that's changed. On Sun, 03 May 2015, John Meinel wrote: Just to follow up one small point, Rick. The reason Juju has to fix the API and restore the old behavior is because even if Quickstart fixed itself, anyone running an older version is going to break with a newer Juju API, which is why we require API stability, and only changing things by bumping the version. :) John =:- -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Do not land code on blocked branches
So I believe you can already switch to how the Juju client does it today (call AddCharm before you call ServiceDeploy), just that we can't require you to do so. John =:- On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Richard Harding rick.hard...@canonical.com wrote: Thanks for the update. I've closed the bug for now and we'll reopen an issue to update to the latest api version once that's changed. On Sun, 03 May 2015, John Meinel wrote: Just to follow up one small point, Rick. The reason Juju has to fix the API and restore the old behavior is because even if Quickstart fixed itself, anyone running an older version is going to break with a newer Juju API, which is why we require API stability, and only changing things by bumping the version. :) John =:- -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
bugs, fixes and targeting Juju versions
Hi All, tl;dr `git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch; patch -p0 diff.patch` is useful for landing bug fixes in different versions of juju. As a lot of us are currently bug hunting and needing to land fixes in multiple versions of Juju, I thought I'd share my process of doing that (maybe it's helpful?): So say you've branched master, let's call it bug-fix-master-branch, it's got your fix but you need to land it in 1.24. So branch 1.24, let's call it bug-fix-124, and do the following: # generate a diff of your changes that can be used with patch (--no-prefix master is the magic flag that generates the right format) (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch # don't add or commit, checkout the other branch (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git checkout bug-fix-124 # diff.patch is still there, unstaged. So use it to add the patch (bug-fix-124) $ patch -p0 diff.patch # do a sanity check (bug-fix-124) $ git diff # remove the patch file (bug-fix-124) $ rm diff.patch You've now got a bug-fix branch eligible for automatic merging targeting 1.24. Cheers, Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: bugs, fixes and targeting Juju versions
git cherry-pick does this as a git command. Tim On 05/05/15 13:03, Jesse Meek wrote: Hi All, tl;dr `git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch; patch -p0 diff.patch` is useful for landing bug fixes in different versions of juju. As a lot of us are currently bug hunting and needing to land fixes in multiple versions of Juju, I thought I'd share my process of doing that (maybe it's helpful?): So say you've branched master, let's call it bug-fix-master-branch, it's got your fix but you need to land it in 1.24. So branch 1.24, let's call it bug-fix-124, and do the following: # generate a diff of your changes that can be used with patch (--no-prefix master is the magic flag that generates the right format) (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch # don't add or commit, checkout the other branch (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git checkout bug-fix-124 # diff.patch is still there, unstaged. So use it to add the patch (bug-fix-124) $ patch -p0 diff.patch # do a sanity check (bug-fix-124) $ git diff # remove the patch file (bug-fix-124) $ rm diff.patch You've now got a bug-fix branch eligible for automatic merging targeting 1.24. Cheers, Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: bugs, fixes and targeting Juju versions
Yes, cheery pick is something I use all the time, as it fills out the PR in the latter branches with a nice commit message based on the original and also includes the original PR from which the commit was first done. On 05/05/15 11:45, Jesse Meek wrote: Ah, even better. Now I can update my workflow :) On 05/05/15 13:43, Menno Smits wrote: cherry-pick will even grab the top commit of a branch if you give the branch name (presuming the fix is a single commit). For example: git checkout -b bug-fix-1.24 upstream/1.24 # create a branch for the fix in 1.24 git cherry-pick bug-fix-master-branch # pull the fix across There are various ways of grabbing multiple revisions too. And of course, as per Ian's recent email you should be targeting fixes to the lowest affected version and working forwards. So really in your example the fix should be made for 1.24 and the cherry picked onto a branch made from master. On 5 May 2015 at 13:15, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com mailto:tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote: git cherry-pick does this as a git command. Tim On 05/05/15 13:03, Jesse Meek wrote: Hi All, tl;dr `git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch; patch -p0 diff.patch` is useful for landing bug fixes in different versions of juju. As a lot of us are currently bug hunting and needing to land fixes in multiple versions of Juju, I thought I'd share my process of doing that (maybe it's helpful?): So say you've branched master, let's call it bug-fix-master-branch, it's got your fix but you need to land it in 1.24. So branch 1.24, let's call it bug-fix-124, and do the following: # generate a diff of your changes that can be used with patch (--no-prefix master is the magic flag that generates the right format) (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch # don't add or commit, checkout the other branch (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git checkout bug-fix-124 # diff.patch is still there, unstaged. So use it to add the patch (bug-fix-124) $ patch -p0 diff.patch # do a sanity check (bug-fix-124) $ git diff # remove the patch file (bug-fix-124) $ rm diff.patch You've now got a bug-fix branch eligible for automatic merging targeting 1.24. Cheers, Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Resolving the same windows test failures again
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Martin Packman martin.pack...@canonical.com
wrote:
There was some confusion about the regression to the windows test
failures on trunk.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1450919
Partly my fault, Curtis initially looked at the 1.24 branch and I
looked at trunk, and each branch has a different issue. Here's what
I've just done to diagnose.
So, trunk first, I noticed the failures looked exactly the same as
before CI fiddled with the environment variable casing to work around
a juju bug:
https://launchpad.net/bugs/1446871
The fix for this bug landed on master, therefore it's easy to assume
that change actually broke the casing behaviour in such a way as to
invalidate the CI hack, rather than fixing the underlying issue.
Looking at the code:
https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2124/files
Two similar functions now exist for merging case, mergeEnvWin which
works on map[string]string and mergeWindowsEnvironment which works on
[]string. Only mergeEnvWin has tests. Guess, mergeWindowsEnvironment
is bugged. Indeed:
- m[strings.ToUpper(varSplit[0])] = varSplit[1]
+ k := varSplit[0]
+ if _, ok := uppers[strings.ToUpper(k)]; ok {
+ uppers[k] = varSplit[1]
It's not uppercasing the key in the assignment. So, Path is matched to
PATH, Path is assigned to, but later only PATH is pulled out.
Now for the 1.24 branch, no hints here. So, lets see what changed.
Latest working 1.24 without windows test failures:
http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/2581
Earliest 1.24 with windows test failures:
http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/2592
$ git diff fffe3e4f..95e7619f
2770 lines... Not helpful. But, error mentions cannot move the charm
archive and:
-gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5 git
6b74a2771545912f8a91a544b0f28405b99386242015-04-14T14:33:47Z
+gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5 git
779394167ac61b02ca73ca17c3012f05a5ba316c2015-04-30T02:46:55Z
$ pushd ~/go/src/gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5
Try to update and branches diverged? Wha?
$ git diff 6b74a277..77939416
Er... this includes a revert of my licence header changes, and, the
answer to the test failures, Gabriel's file closing fix:
https://github.com/juju/charm/pull/119
https://github.com/juju/charm/pull/120
Those fixes were not made on v5, and only existed on v6-unstable.
I later came along and merged some changes into v5 and updated
Juju's dependencies.tsv to the latest commit on v5. That meant the
fixes were dropped.
I've cherry-picked the fixes into v5, and have a merge job queued for
https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2212.
Please, everyone, be careful to ensure fixes go on the appropriate
branch. For gopkg.in-based packages, that means only pinning to
commits on the branch related to the package path suffix.
Cheers,
Andrew
So, just renaming a variable is *not* safe (if you accidentally back
out other changes when merging).
Both these regressions happened due to landing 'safe' changes while
the branch was broken, and were therefore harder to pin down than they
would otherwise have been.
Martin
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: bugs, fixes and targeting Juju versions
Ah, even better. Now I can update my workflow :) On 05/05/15 13:43, Menno Smits wrote: cherry-pick will even grab the top commit of a branch if you give the branch name (presuming the fix is a single commit). For example: git checkout -b bug-fix-1.24 upstream/1.24 # create a branch for the fix in 1.24 git cherry-pick bug-fix-master-branch # pull the fix across There are various ways of grabbing multiple revisions too. And of course, as per Ian's recent email you should be targeting fixes to the lowest affected version and working forwards. So really in your example the fix should be made for 1.24 and the cherry picked onto a branch made from master. On 5 May 2015 at 13:15, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com mailto:tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote: git cherry-pick does this as a git command. Tim On 05/05/15 13:03, Jesse Meek wrote: Hi All, tl;dr `git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch; patch -p0 diff.patch` is useful for landing bug fixes in different versions of juju. As a lot of us are currently bug hunting and needing to land fixes in multiple versions of Juju, I thought I'd share my process of doing that (maybe it's helpful?): So say you've branched master, let's call it bug-fix-master-branch, it's got your fix but you need to land it in 1.24. So branch 1.24, let's call it bug-fix-124, and do the following: # generate a diff of your changes that can be used with patch (--no-prefix master is the magic flag that generates the right format) (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git diff --no-prefix master diff.patch # don't add or commit, checkout the other branch (bug-fix-master-branch) $ git checkout bug-fix-124 # diff.patch is still there, unstaged. So use it to add the patch (bug-fix-124) $ patch -p0 diff.patch # do a sanity check (bug-fix-124) $ git diff # remove the patch file (bug-fix-124) $ rm diff.patch You've now got a bug-fix branch eligible for automatic merging targeting 1.24. Cheers, Jess -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: Resolving the same windows test failures again
Sorry for the lack of tests for that part of the code, I guess I added them
for one and not the other. Note that I had actually been leaving that PR
unmerged because I knew master was blocked. Sorry it got pushed in anyway,
and caused problems.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Martin Packman martin.pack...@canonical.com
wrote:
There was some confusion about the regression to the windows test
failures on trunk.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1450919
Partly my fault, Curtis initially looked at the 1.24 branch and I
looked at trunk, and each branch has a different issue. Here's what
I've just done to diagnose.
So, trunk first, I noticed the failures looked exactly the same as
before CI fiddled with the environment variable casing to work around
a juju bug:
https://launchpad.net/bugs/1446871
The fix for this bug landed on master, therefore it's easy to assume
that change actually broke the casing behaviour in such a way as to
invalidate the CI hack, rather than fixing the underlying issue.
Looking at the code:
https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2124/files
Two similar functions now exist for merging case, mergeEnvWin which
works on map[string]string and mergeWindowsEnvironment which works on
[]string. Only mergeEnvWin has tests. Guess, mergeWindowsEnvironment
is bugged. Indeed:
- m[strings.ToUpper(varSplit[0])] = varSplit[1]
+ k := varSplit[0]
+ if _, ok := uppers[strings.ToUpper(k)]; ok {
+ uppers[k] = varSplit[1]
It's not uppercasing the key in the assignment. So, Path is matched to
PATH, Path is assigned to, but later only PATH is pulled out.
Now for the 1.24 branch, no hints here. So, lets see what changed.
Latest working 1.24 without windows test failures:
http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/2581
Earliest 1.24 with windows test failures:
http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/2592
$ git diff fffe3e4f..95e7619f
2770 lines... Not helpful. But, error mentions cannot move the charm
archive and:
-gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5 git
6b74a2771545912f8a91a544b0f28405b99386242015-04-14T14:33:47Z
+gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5 git
779394167ac61b02ca73ca17c3012f05a5ba316c2015-04-30T02:46:55Z
$ pushd ~/go/src/gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5
Try to update and branches diverged? Wha?
$ git diff 6b74a277..77939416
Er... this includes a revert of my licence header changes, and, the
answer to the test failures, Gabriel's file closing fix:
https://github.com/juju/charm/pull/119
https://github.com/juju/charm/pull/120
So, just renaming a variable is *not* safe (if you accidentally back
out other changes when merging).
Both these regressions happened due to landing 'safe' changes while
the branch was broken, and were therefore harder to pin down than they
would otherwise have been.
Martin
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Resolving the same windows test failures again
There was some confusion about the regression to the windows test
failures on trunk.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1450919
Partly my fault, Curtis initially looked at the 1.24 branch and I
looked at trunk, and each branch has a different issue. Here's what
I've just done to diagnose.
So, trunk first, I noticed the failures looked exactly the same as
before CI fiddled with the environment variable casing to work around
a juju bug:
https://launchpad.net/bugs/1446871
The fix for this bug landed on master, therefore it's easy to assume
that change actually broke the casing behaviour in such a way as to
invalidate the CI hack, rather than fixing the underlying issue.
Looking at the code:
https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2124/files
Two similar functions now exist for merging case, mergeEnvWin which
works on map[string]string and mergeWindowsEnvironment which works on
[]string. Only mergeEnvWin has tests. Guess, mergeWindowsEnvironment
is bugged. Indeed:
- m[strings.ToUpper(varSplit[0])] = varSplit[1]
+ k := varSplit[0]
+ if _, ok := uppers[strings.ToUpper(k)]; ok {
+ uppers[k] = varSplit[1]
It's not uppercasing the key in the assignment. So, Path is matched to
PATH, Path is assigned to, but later only PATH is pulled out.
Now for the 1.24 branch, no hints here. So, lets see what changed.
Latest working 1.24 without windows test failures:
http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/2581
Earliest 1.24 with windows test failures:
http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/2592
$ git diff fffe3e4f..95e7619f
2770 lines... Not helpful. But, error mentions cannot move the charm
archive and:
-gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5 git
6b74a2771545912f8a91a544b0f28405b99386242015-04-14T14:33:47Z
+gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5 git
779394167ac61b02ca73ca17c3012f05a5ba316c2015-04-30T02:46:55Z
$ pushd ~/go/src/gopkg.in/juju/charm.v5
Try to update and branches diverged? Wha?
$ git diff 6b74a277..77939416
Er... this includes a revert of my licence header changes, and, the
answer to the test failures, Gabriel's file closing fix:
https://github.com/juju/charm/pull/119
https://github.com/juju/charm/pull/120
So, just renaming a variable is *not* safe (if you accidentally back
out other changes when merging).
Both these regressions happened due to landing 'safe' changes while
the branch was broken, and were therefore harder to pin down than they
would otherwise have been.
Martin
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
