accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1961) Fix trivial compiler/javadoc warnings
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:41:26 GMT
Definitely avoid git push --all. I don't think the order is well
defined. But, I do agree that a good workflow is to do all the merges
in order, then go back and do all the pushes in order.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the difference in workflow is that some committers push and merge
>> branches one at a time, while other committers merge everything locally and
>> then push all at once. I strongly prefer the second approach.
>>
>
> The second approach is best.  Still need to be careful.  AFAICT git push
> -all is not an atomic operation across all branches.  Need to push the
> oldest branch first.  Will 'git push -all' do this?  If not, then should
> push branches in correct order.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree you definitely don't want to be skipping specific commits when
>> > merging... but that's not what Mike nor I suggested. Rather, our
>> > suggestion was that you can do a regular merge of any parentage,
>> > before doing a -sours merge of your commit.
>> >
>> > To John's point, this is essentially what the previous committer
>> > should have done (in this case, me) before your commit arrived.
>> > However, there is a race condition here... and the previous committer
>> > may be in the process of doing this when you come on the scene. So,
>> > you should always be extra careful about merging.... especially with
>> > -sours.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > John's strategy can certainly work [1]. I don't think it's a good idea
>> to
>> > > make it a typical part of workflow, though. It's complicated, and I
>> don't
>> > > want to have to look back through the history before each merge (3 of
>> > them
>> > > for a 1.4 change) for commits to skip.
>> > >
>> > > Also, skipped commits are still left behind, unmergeable, requiring a
>> > > cherry-pick to be rescued later. So, to be safe, you'd have to wait to
>> > find
>> > > out what to do with them before skipping.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know a better tactic, but I have the feeling it must involve
>> less
>> > > branches or less merging.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > >
>> >
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/727994/git-skipping-specific-commits-when-merging
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> As Mike pointed out, you can't do it if there is unmerged parents.
You
>> > >> have to merge the parents first, then your commit. If there's any
>> > >> commits which are children of the commit you want to merge with
>> > >> -sours, you can single out your specific commit by referencing the
>> > >> sha1 in the merge instead of the branch name. That will leave the
>> > >> children unmerged, still, but will isolate your -sours to just that
>> > >> commit. Then you can merge the remaining children in a separate merge.
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Bill Havanki <
>> > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > Popping this out of JIRA since I am changing the subject somewhat.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Christopher (or anyone, really): Can you give me an example of
>> doing a
>> > >> > merge with -sours but only with specific commits, as recommended?
It
>> > >> makes
>> > >> > sense that this is safer vs. sweeping in HEAD. Just trying to
refine
>> > my
>> > >> > workflow. Thanks!
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Bill
>> > >> >
>> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > >> > From: Christopher Tubbs (JIRA) <jira@apache.org>
>> > >> > Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM
>> > >> > Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1961) Fix trivial
>> > compiler/javadoc
>> > >> > warnings
>> > >> > To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org
>> > >> >
>> > >> >     [
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1961?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13905940#comment-13905940
>> > >> ]
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-1961:
>> > >> > ---------------------------------------------
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It looks like you are right. Be careful about -sours. You should
>> > probably
>> > >> > only use that with specific commits, not the HEAD of the branch,
>> which
>> > >> > could reference multiple commits.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Don't worry about fixing it. I'll redo. There's some other javadoc
>> > >> > errors/warnings and other trivial warnings in master that need
to be
>> > >> fixed
>> > >> > anyway.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > | - - -
>> > > | Bill Havanki
>> > > | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions
>> > > | - - -
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message