asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Carey <dtab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Migration of git repository
Date Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:39:10 GMT
All,

It feels to me (as one who is completely naive about much of this stuff) 
like we need two levels of "releases", one level for the outside world 
(the public releases that users might pick up) and a different internal 
level for the development process (where we essentially want to have 
tagged/extra-tested checkpoints and want to be able to manage in a 
careful way the cross-dependencies from/to other related development 
processes X - e.g., for X = VXQuery, AsterixDB, and someday Pregelix).  
When we do an official signed release of anything, we'd need to do one 
for the DAG of things - so there might be sync'ed "multireleases" (for 
Hyacks and then for X).  Does that make any sense and/or give anyone 
more thoughts about how we might achieve that...?

Cheers,
MIke


On 6/8/15 2:08 AM, Chris Hillery wrote:
> If not, it may be worth taking a step back and asking what exactly the
> problem is. I understand the general rule that "we don't want Asterix to be
> broken", but what precisely does that mean? Is it acceptable that the tip
> of the Asterix source branch is only guaranteed to build against the tip of
> the Hyracks branch, for example? If not, why not? What audience are we
> required to keep things working for at the source level, and what
> expectations do they have?
>
> Ceej
> aka Chris Hillery
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Chris Hillery <chillery@hillery.land> wrote:
>
>> So, if we pushed these not-releases to the Nexus repo running at UCI, and
>> devs pulled from there in preference to "official" repos, that would solve
>> the problem?
>>
>> Ceej
>> aka Chris Hillery
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If it is pushed to any wider audience than roughly the dev@ list, it is
>>> a release. That definitely includes maven central.  Artifacts in maven are
>>> convenience binaries and this not a release but they should be traceable to
>>> an exact source release.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 2015, at 19:10, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, good point. It doesn’t have to. One question might be if we can
>>> push it to some maven repository, if it’s not an official release.
>>>> But I think that should also be fine as long as we don’t push it to a
>>> repository that claims to contain official releases.
>>>> Some mentor input might be helpful on this as well :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 7, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Ildar Absalyamov <
>>> ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Does version bump always mean full-fledged Apache release? We need the
>>> former just to resolve compile time dependencies.
>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2015, at 18:49, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In principle I agree with this, but creating a new release will be
a
>>> little more involved that just running maven, when we do this at the ASF.
>>>>>> To publish a new release we will have to vet and vote on the release.
>>> This takes at least 72 hours  in the best case if we’re a TLP, the first
>>> release candidate is great, and have enough people to vote. While we’re
>>> still in the incubator, releasing will take a little longer as we also have
>>> to get enough votes for the release in the incubator.
>>>>>> As I proposed earlier, it would be really good to go through the
full
>>> release process once, before we decide how to structure our processes and
>>> infrastructure.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Ildar Absalyamov <
>>> ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am with Chris on repository separation and I think that the
>>> solution to the issue of Hyracks commits breaking Asterix build is using
>>> release Hyracks versions instead of snapshot ones. Yes, that will create a
>>> frequent Hyracks releases (we will have to release it each time there is a
>>> change which spans both Hyracks & Asterix) and we have abandoned this
>>> practice a while ago, but it seems that’s the only way to separate projects
>>> logically.
>>>>>>> Here are few examples to clear the picture. In all examples Hyracks
>>> version is 4.5.6-Snapshot, Asterix version is 1.2.3-Snapshot (but it
>>> depends on previous release version Hyracks 4.5.5):
>>>>>>> 1) The changes span both Asterix & Hyracks.
>>>>>>> First make sure that Asterix could depend on Hyracks 4.5.6-Snapshot
>>> without API conflicts & switch Asterix dependency to 4.5.6-Snapshot.
>>>>>>> Submit Gerrit review, once it is done as a part of git-asf script
>>> commit changes, bump Hyracks version to 4.5.6, make Asterix depend on 4.5.6
>>> and bump Hyracks to 4.5.7-Snapshot right after.
>>>>>>> 2) The changes are located only in Hyracks. Regular review and
>>> commit (with snapshot version) without any version bump.
>>>>>>> 3) The changes are located only in Asterix. Regular review and
>>> commit (with snapshot version) without any version bump.
>>>>>>> In this scenario Hyracks commit can never make Asterix build
fail
>>> (since it depends on a stable release) and it’s the responsibility of the
>>> first person, whose commits spans both repos to make sure that the changes
>>> in snapshot Hyracks version are properly merged.
>>>>>>> Regarding the Yingyi’s issue with Gerrit topics: could we modify
>>> git-gerrit script so it would submit both Asterix & Hyracks reviews
>>> (granted that the latter is needed), and link them together, setting the
>>> proper topic? Gerrit seems to have API for changing that, right?
>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 15:45, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just a quick high-level note from our nearest equivalent
of the
>>> pointy-haired Dilbert guy (aka me):  What would be nice is to have Hyracks
>>> changes kick off tests of all "supported client projects" - AsterixDB,
>>> VXQuery, maybe also Pregelix, IMRU, and possibly others in the future.  I
>>> don't think we'll ever prevent such downstream things from being broken
>>> unless we run their tests - so I would suggest that we need a mechanism to
>>> keep Hyracks changes from being permitted to happen without verifying the
>>> ongoing integrity of all "blessed" (priority 1) affected projects....  We
>>> could have an agreed upon list of such projects and tests for each....  It
>>> would be nice to have a "quick check" (hello world still works, basics are
>>> working) that was synchronously blocking of such changes, and at least a
>>> daily verification that all's totally well (AFAWK) for them all.
>>>>>>>> Not sure how this affects the still two-sided discussion...
 :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/15 10:00 AM, Chris Hillery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Yingyi Bu <buyingyi@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion,  merging the repository doesn't break
the
>>> separation of
>>>>>>>>>> hyracks and asterixdb, because the dependencies are
controlled by
>>> mvn pom
>>>>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That wasn't the separation I was talking about. I meant
API
>>> separation. As
>>>>>>>>> it is now, when we make a change to both Asterix and
Hyracks, we
>>> are forced
>>>>>>>>> to consider the API implications, or at least they are
put out
>>> there in a
>>>>>>>>> very clear way that we need to look at. If we merge them,
people
>>> will
>>>>>>>>> (rightly) treat the whole thing as one product, and there
will be
>>> no brakes
>>>>>>>>> on making wide-ranging API changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (As an aside: I don't trust Maven's pom files to do a
good job of
>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>> the dependency management clean. In fact I trust it to
do
>>> precisely the
>>>>>>>>> opposite, by making it both easier to screw up the dependencies
>>> and harder
>>>>>>>>> to update them in future.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, my point is this: If we truly believe that Hyracks
is a
>>> re-usable
>>>>>>>>> component, it should be treated as such from source to
build to
>>> delivery.
>>>>>>>>> By merging in Asterix, we are saying that Asterix is
"more equal"
>>> than
>>>>>>>>> others Hyracks clients, to the point that we're tacitly
willing to
>>> break
>>>>>>>>> those other clients in favor of simplifying Asterix development.
>>> If that is
>>>>>>>>> a fair and true statement, well, then, sure, let's merge
them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) It forces those hyracks-only changes to pass asterixdb
>>> regression
>>>>>>>>>> tests.  Currently hyracks-only change are not verified
by
>>> asterixdb tests.
>>>>>>>>> This is a good point, I will admit. However, I think
this same
>>> goal can be
>>>>>>>>> met in other ways. My strong preference would be to create
a set
>>> of true
>>>>>>>>> API tests inside of Hyracks, which both document and
test the
>>> external
>>>>>>>>> Hyracks API. That will make API-breaking changes in future
much
>>> easier to
>>>>>>>>> spot, and also make it clear when Asterix is using internal
APIs
>>> that it
>>>>>>>>> should not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) On my local machine,  I don't need to always install
hyracks
>>> and then
>>>>>>>>>> verify asterixdb from time to time.  Especially,
switching
>>> branches seems
>>>>>>>>>> painful because the installed hyracks snapshot is
overwritten
>>> from time to
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't tried working on multiple Hyracks branches
at the same
>>> time, so I
>>>>>>>>> haven't experienced this. This seems like a working method
error,
>>> though.
>>>>>>>>> If you're working with two things that are "the same
version"
>>> (even if
>>>>>>>>> that's a snapshot version), you'll need to use separate
Maven
>>> repositories
>>>>>>>>> to install them. In fact, merging the two git repositories
would
>>> do nothing
>>>>>>>>> to fix this problem, will it? If the proposal is to put
the two
>>> source
>>>>>>>>> repositories in the same git repo but otherwise leave
them
>>> untouched, then
>>>>>>>>> nothing would change in the build process. It's possible
I'm
>>> missing
>>>>>>>>> something there, though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) I only need to make one code review request and
one jenkins
>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>> Currently I need to manually change the topic of
my asterixdb
>>> gerrit CL
>>>>>>>>>> every time before I update my hyracks CL, and then
manually
>>> schedule
>>>>>>>>>> jenkins to run a new asterixdb job.  If I forget
to schedule the
>>> jenkins
>>>>>>>>>> job, the asterixdb CL is still shown to be "verified
by jenkins".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a problem, but it's a problem in commit validation,
not in
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> source. Modifying the source to work around these issues
is still
>>> a bad
>>>>>>>>> idea IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "change-topic" issue could be fixed with a bit of
development
>>> work
>>>>>>>>> (have the topic point to a change, rather than a specific
patchset
>>> on the
>>>>>>>>> change, so you only need to set it once, for instance).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for manually scheduling Asterix Jenkins jobs, that
sounds like
>>> it's only
>>>>>>>>> a problem where your Hyracks change breaks an existing
public API.
>>> That
>>>>>>>>> would be obviated by having true API testing inside of
Hyracks,
>>> which is
>>>>>>>>> something that we should have regardless of any decisions
about
>>> source
>>>>>>>>> locations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In summary / repeating myself again: yes, we have some
problems
>>> because
>>>>>>>>> Hyracks and Asterix are in seperate repositories. But
those
>>> problems are
>>>>>>>>> pointing out true issues with our development and processes.
>>> Merging the
>>>>>>>>> repositories isn't fixing those problems, it's sweeping
them under
>>> the rug.
>>>>>>>>> Long term we would be much better off to identify, isolate,
and
>>> fix the
>>>>>>>>> problems themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ceej
>>>>>>>>> aka Chris Hillery
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Ildar
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ildar
>>>>>
>>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message