asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Maxon <ima...@uci.edu>
Subject Re: The Great Merge
Date Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:02:52 GMT
Alright, everything is pushed. Please post here or start another thread if
you start to experience issues.

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Ian Maxon <imaxon@uci.edu> wrote:

> Just as a reminder, I'll be merging this tommorow since it seems like
> everything should go fairly smoothly.
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco002@ucr.edu> wrote:
>
>> http://landbeforetime.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Valley
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco002@ucr.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > No, we are living in the GREAT valley :)
>> > Steven
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sounds like things are GOOD!  Excellent.  (So not to be feared like the
>> >> event that the name of this one keeps reminding me of:
>> >> http://landbeforetime.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Earthshake :-).)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/4/16 1:12 PM, Steven Jacobs wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It seems that I might be the only one concerned here, but it seems
>> like
>> >>> there should be others, so I am continuing this thread.
>> >>>
>> >>> I modified the perl REGEX from Chris' summer solution, and it works!
>> >>>
>> >>> Once Ian has merged master:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. On your local branch, find the *parent* of the first commit you
>> want
>> >>> to
>> >>> migrate onto the new master, e.g.
>> >>> de6e0da24c26037967eb9a937d2c77c6c43e8761
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. Run this magic command:
>> >>>
>> >>>     git format-patch --stdout
>> de6e0da24c26037967eb9a937d2c77c6c43e8761 |
>> >>> perl -pe 's#asterix-#asterixdb/asterix-#g' > /tmp/my.patch
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. Now fetch master, and create a new local branch from it:
>> >>>
>> >>>     git switch master; git pull; git checkout -B newbranch
>> >>>
>> >>> 4. Apply your tweaked patch:
>> >>>
>> >>>     git am /tmp/my.patch
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This recognized ALL of my file moves/renames and applied them
>> correctly.
>> >>> It
>> >>> leaves only two issues:
>> >>> 1) Something similar will probably need to be done for Hyracks changes
>> >>> 2) My pom changes didn't apply. This isn't so bad since there are
>> only a
>> >>> few pom files total.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope this helps,
>> >>> Steven
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco002@ucr.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is Chris's original solution to give context. I think changing
>> the
>> >>>> REGEX might be enough to re-use the solution:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1. On your local branch, find the *parent* of the first commit you
>> want
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> migrate onto the new master. If you were fully up-to-date before
the
>> >>>> repackaging commits went in, this will be Till's
>> >>>> change 95350e253f3462b1fb8d08396b4fddadaa33bf53, so I'll use that
>> here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2. Run this magic command:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>     git format-patch --stdout
>> 95350e253f3462b1fb8d08396b4fddadaa33bf53 |
>> >>>> perl -pe 's#edu(.)uci.ics#org\1apache#g' > /tmp/my.patch
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 3. Now fetch the new master, and create a new local branch from
it:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>     git switch master; git pull; git checkout -B newbranch
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 4. Apply your tweaked patch:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>     git am /tmp/my.patch
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Steven
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco002@ucr.edu>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've tried doing this now on my branch.
>> >>>>> As I feared, all of the files that are renamed/moved become
>> conflicts
>> >>>>> (just a few hundred conflicts in my case 😑).
>> >>>>> I'm wondering if we could use a similar technique for what we
did
>> >>>>> during
>> >>>>> the summer (for the apache change) to get around this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Steven
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I’m not sure I completely understand what you are saying.
Is this a
>> >>>>>> temporary state that will get cleaned up later or is this
supposed
>> to
>> >>>>>> stay this way (having "-fullstack" in the names)?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>> Till
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 31 Mar 2016, at 19:39, Ian Maxon wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'm not sure if it was necessary to rename it, but the original
>> issue
>> >>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> that the hyracks repo itself has a folder named hyracks,
that
>> >>>>>>> contains
>> >>>>>>> hyracks. I thought this might confuse git if I did something
like
>> >>>>>>> make a
>> >>>>>>> new temporary folder, move everything into that, and
then rename
>> it
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> 'hyracks'.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Till Westmann <tillw@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Interesting!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> One thing I’m wondering about is why you’ve
added "-fullstack" to
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> artifactId and the hyracks module.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>> Till
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 31 Mar 2016, at 17:21, Ian Maxon wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I've gone ahead and tried merging my topic branch
with this
>> change,
>> >>>>>>>> and it
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> turned out surprisingly well. I really didn't have
many issues.
>> I'll
>> >>>>>>>>> summarize the process:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 1) Merge the change from asterixdb with your
topic branch
>> checked
>> >>>>>>>>> out, so
>> >>>>>>>>> just 'git merge hyracks-merge2'.
>> >>>>>>>>> The only real conflict should be the pom, if
you altered that. I
>> >>>>>>>>> found it
>> >>>>>>>>> easiest to just replicate my changes and take
the upstream,
>> rather
>> >>>>>>>>> than
>> >>>>>>>>> trying anything funny, since usually pom changes
are not major.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 2) Add your hyracks folder as a remote (for
me, 'git remote add
>> >>>>>>>>> hyracks-local file:///home/...')
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 3) Merge your hyracks topic branch into asterixdb
( ' git merge
>> >>>>>>>>> hyracks-local/imaxon/hdfs')
>> >>>>>>>>> This also worked pretty well, the only extra
hiccup besides the
>> pom
>> >>>>>>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>>> files I had created. Those appeared at the top
level again after
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> merge.
>> >>>>>>>>> But, all you have to do is move them back down
one folder into
>> >>>>>>>>> hyracks-fullstack.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> That's about it really. I went ahead and pushed
this up to
>> github
>> >>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>> well
>> >>>>>>>>> so if anyone would like to take a look at the
process or check
>> out
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> branch to see what happened (at least for me),
the branch is
>> here:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/tree/imaxon/hdfs-plus-hyracks
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>> -Ian
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Ian Maxon <imaxon@uci.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Chris found an issue with the way git histories
were being
>> handled
>> >>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> way I merged things, so I have revised the proposed
branch:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/commits/hyracks-merge2
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Basically I was trying to fit everything
into one commit,
>> because
>> >>>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>> thought at first that I could submit it
to Gerrit that way.
>> >>>>>>>>>> However
>> >>>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>> doesn't work for other reasons, basically
Gerrit tries to treat
>> >>>>>>>>>> every new
>> >>>>>>>>>> commit from Hyracks as a new change. Splitting
the commits of
>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>> repository merge fixes the issue.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> @Till, I think that creating a textual patch
would just be more
>> >>>>>>>>>> work. If
>> >>>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>> were to do it that way I would try fetching
the Gerrit patch,
>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> then
>> >>>>>>>>>> cherry-picking it onto a new branch that
has the
>> hyracks+asterix
>> >>>>>>>>>> master
>> >>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>> the head.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Till Westmann
<
>> tillw@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> To get existing patches in, could we just
create a textual
>> patch
>> >>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> from gerrit), apply that with the necessary
-p option to a new
>> >>>>>>>>>>> local
>> >>>>>>>>>>> checkout of the merged repositories
and submit a new review to
>> >>>>>>>>>>> gerrit?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Till
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Mar 2016, at 12:36, Ian Maxon
wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I went ahead preliminarily merged the
Hyracks and AsterixDB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> repositories
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> into one. Unfortunately this can't
be reviewed in Gerrit so
>> you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> all can
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> check it out here:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/tree/imaxon/merge-hyracks
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You will likely have to do some ugly
rebasing for whatever
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> might have open once this gets done,
since it moves asterixdb
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> down
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> one
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> folder and swaps out pom.xml in
the repository root. Hyracks
>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> similar situation, though you would
want to reapply your
>> change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> AsterixDB repo from Hyracks (which
is a bit odd). If you
>> would
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> like to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> see
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> how this affects your branch please
do try fetching the
>> branch I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> linked
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> above and testing it out on a copy
of your topic branch.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still making sure all of the
tests pass but nothing's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> failed so
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> far.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless anyone has objections I think
we should push this
>> change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> either
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> week or early next week.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you all think.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Ian
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

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