asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Till Westmann" <>
Subject Re: The Great Merge
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2016 01:35:08 GMT

One thing I’m wondering about is why you’ve added "-fullstack" to 
the artifactId and the hyracks module.


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:
> Thanks,
> -Ian
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Ian Maxon <> 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:
>> 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 <> 
>> 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:
>>>> 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

View raw message