accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: [git] Documentation and Plan of Action
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:18:23 GMT
It's not an empty commit. It's just circumstantial that the changes for 
your commit are empty. The fact that you noted "changes X version 
version1 should not be applied to version2" is important and that merge 
tracks such information.

The same is applicable when version1 and version2 depend on two 
different versions of a dependency. Say your new code in version1 calls 
a method whose signature changed in said dependency from the version 
version1 depends on as opposed to the version of the dependency version2 
depends on. Point being, after making the changes in version1, it is 
your responsibility to make sure whatever necessary variants exist in 
their appropriate versions.

On 06/11/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> It was originally a general question, because I wasn't sure on what the
> proper answer.
> Actually, I'm still not quite clear - should the person who did the fix for
> Version1 immediately do a merge into Version2 with an empty commit so that
> history looks pretty? Or is it better to wait until the next merge and then
> fix it as it happens? The first option sounds less liable to bite somebody
> in the rear.
> Probably worth expounding on the example work-flow in the documentation
> though.
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>> The person who implements the workaround in Version1 should ensure that
>> when Version1 is merged into Version2, the correct code is present in
>> Version2.
>> Do you think this merits a section on the document or was this a general
>> question?
>> On 6/11/13 11:44 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>> How do we handle the following situation:
>>> There are two active development branches - versions 1 and 2. Branch 1
>>> uses
>>> external library  version 7, while Branch 2 uses external library version
>>> 9. It is discovered that version 7 of the external library has a bug, with
>>> a known workaround. In this case, the workaround should be applied to
>>> branch 1, but does not need to be applied to branch 2. What is the
>>> git-friendly way to make these changes, not merge them into the later
>>> branch, but still have a proper history and allow future fixes against
>>> branch 1 to merge cleanly?
>>> Mike
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>>>   Sean,
>>>> I was referring to Christopher's notes on the maven commands; using the
>>>> release plugin, making RCs, publishing to the ASF staging area, promoting
>>>> to the RC if the vote passes, etc.
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.****org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/****
>>>> 201305.mbox/%**
>>>> 3CCAL5zq9bH8y0FyjXmmfXhWPj8axo****sn9dZ7%2Bu-R1DK4Y-WM1YoWg%**
>>>> mbox/accumulo-dev/201305.mbox/**%**3CCAL5zq9bH8y0FyjXmmfXhWPj8axo**
>>>> sn9dZ7%2Bu-R1DK4Y-WM1YoWg%**<>
>>>> I don't believe that information is markdown-ified/CMS'ed at all.
>>>> I did add the high-level release guide to that comment with a place
>>>> holder
>>>> for when we get the specifics also written down on the CMS.
>>>> On 6/11/13 7:16 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>>>   Release Guide:
>>>>> <http**://**governance/releasing.html<>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Josh Elser <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>    Alright, I think I covered all of the content that's needed.
>>>>>> <http://****elserj/**git/git.html<**elserj/git/git.html>
>>>>>> <http://****elserj/git/**git.html<**git.html>
>>>>>> <http://****git.html<>
>>>>>> Disclaimer, I actually got Christopher to say "it's kind of long...".
>>>>>> Yes,
>>>>>> this was intended. I'd rather be (painfully) explicit front and lift
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> TL;DR version from the master document.
>>>>>> _Please_ give feedback now as to what is still unclear about after
>>>>>> reading
>>>>>> the document. I'd hate to have wasted all of this time writing this
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> change our minds again in the near future
>>>>>> Also, please look for text in _emphasis_ as these are things which
I do
>>>>>> not believe were decided upon as a group. Copied here for your ease:
>>>>>> 1. Need to ensure that deleting remote branches is not an issue.
>>>>>> History
>>>>>> is still intact so this should not grind against ASF policy.
>>>>>> 2. Do we have a nice write-up of the release policies?
>>>>>> And, the last thing:
>>>>>> Is everyone ok with the default branch when cloning the repository
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> latest unstable branch (synonymous with what "trunk" is now)? If
so, is
>>>>>> everyone ok with naming it `master`? This is what my vote is towards.
>>>>>> Once we get these questions answered and the process reviewed, I
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> we're ready to move forward with the INFRA ticket.
>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>> On 06/05/2013 09:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>>>>>>    For those who are interested:
>>>>>>> Fork of CMS site:******<****>
>>>>>>> <**repos/** <**>>
>>>>>>> asf/accumulo/site/branches/******git/<****<**>
>>>>>>> repos/asf/accumulo/site/****branches/git/<https://svn.**
>>>>>>>>   Active copy:******elserj/git/git.html<****elserj/git/git.html>
>>>>>>> <http://****elserj/**git/git.html<**elserj/git/git.html>
>>>>>>> <http://****elserj/git/**git.html<**git.html>
>>>>>>> <http://****git.html<>
>>>>>>>>   Jira issue:******
>>>>>>> jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1498<****jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1498>
>>>>>>> <http**s://**jira/**browse/ACCUMULO-1498<**jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1498>
>>>>>>> <http**s://**jira/**browse/ACCUMULO-1498<**browse/ACCUMULO-1498>
>>>>>>> <ht**tps://**browse/ACCUMULO-1498<>
>>>>>>> I finished a first draft of all but what should be done with
>>>>>>> during/after a release (outlining RC tags, a final tag and cleanup
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> branch which started said work, with corresponding merges upstream).
>>>>>>> Again, any and all help, preferably the form of patchs :D, is
>>>>>>> but comments on ACCUMULO-1498 are the next-best thing. I tried
>>>>>>> leave
>>>>>>> placeholders on the site for information which needs to finalized
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> devs.
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2013 11:04 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>>>>>>>    In an effort to track the abundance of information that we
need to
>>>>>>>> define, manage, etc before making the development switch
to git, I've
>>>>>>>> started a WIP document.
>>>>>>>> <http://****elserj/**git/git.html<**elserj/git/git.html>
>>>>>>>> <http://****elserj/git/**git.html<**git.html>
>>>>>>>> <http://****git.html<>
>>>>>>>> Not all of the information included (perhaps "planned to
be included"
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> this point) in the document is likely candidate for final
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> site (e.g. steps to contact INFRA, getting github mirrors,
>>>>>>>> however, I
>>>>>>>> like writing in markdown and this gave me a template without
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> other lifting of my own.
>>>>>>>> If people want to contribute, I'm more than happy to put
something up
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> /accumulo/contrib so that multiple people can directly add/modify
>>>>>>>> information.

View raw message