hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)
Date Sat, 24 May 2014 19:48:34 GMT
Hi,

For those of us who only clone repository and pull for development, the
only external impact is that trunk branch is gone, and now it is called
master. Is this correct?

$ git remote show origin
* remote origin
  Fetch URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase.git
  Push  URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase.git
...
master                                      tracked
refs/remotes/origin/trunk                   stale (use 'git remote prune'
to remove)


On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> INFRA-7800 has been resolved - trunk branch is gone.
>
> +1 to Ram's suggestion.
>
> On May 24, 2014, at 12:05 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just a small suggestion
> > In the doc http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow
> >
> > it says
> > Develop and commit the patch against trunk/master first
> >
> > I think we could update this clearly saying 'master'.  The stmt seems as
> if
> > we could commit to either of those.  May be it is only me but I feel
> better
> > to change it.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> In addition I'd recommend not using a git repo that was cloned from the
> old
> >> read only mirror of SVN.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You have to commit to master.  This is the svn trunk.
> >>>
> >>> -Anoop-
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> >>> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Also the log of the master branch and the trunk branch does not match.
> >>> The
> >>>> master seems to have more commits than the trunk.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Ram
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:39 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> >>>> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I tried with a commit.
> >>>>> Reading the new doc added, should we commit to master or trunk or
is
> >> to
> >>>>> both?
> >>>>> I committed to trunk but the same does not come in the master.
> >>>>> Also when i tried to merge my git clone that was pointing to the
> >>> existing
> >>>>> read only git repo is the udpates happening properly?  A fetch/merge
> >>>> almost
> >>>>> took an entire update and did not merge properly leaving most of
the
> >>>> files
> >>>>> in bad shape.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Ram
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@gmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Can we now commit again, or is the migration still in progress?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nicolas
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I added to the refguide here:
> >>>>>>> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also updated our build box references so point to git instead
of
> >>> svn.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> St.Ack
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks guys for checking.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Can we at least agree on always using something like
the
> >> following
> >>>>>> flow
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> checking in for now:
> >>>>>>>> - Commit the patch to trunk.
> >>>>>>>> - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
> >>>>>>>> - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues,
we
> >> should
> >>>>>>>> cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons
etc.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Enis
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What Andy said.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating
for
> >> above
> >>>>>>> commits).
> >>>>>>>>> I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open
again Andy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> St.Ack
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell
<
> >>>>>> apurtell@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That is unfortunate, because there was not an
all clear sent
> >>> to
> >>>>>> dev@
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>> suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs
are fine.
> >> So
> >>> I
> >>>>>> guess
> >>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>> open season on the Git repo then. Would have
been nice for
> >>> folks
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> waited for Stack or someone else to write back
verifying
> >> file
> >>>>>>> contents
> >>>>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>>> good.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John
<
> >>>>>> anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No Andy. Those were commits to Git after
the migration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Anoop-
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew
Purtell <
> >>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So someone made a commit to SVN **after**
the migration
> >>> was
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> progress??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted
Yu <
> >>>> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The diff shown in
> >>> http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4icorresponds
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-11219
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which was integrated to master and
0.98 last night.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In my local git workspace for 0.98,
I do see this
> >>> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM,
Andrew Purtell <
> >>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra has closed the migration
ticket.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I looked at tags for trunk/master
and 0.98, and
> >> these
> >>>> look
> >>>>>>>> fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately there are differences
between SVN
> >>>> checkouts
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> Git
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkouts. SVN has changes on
trunk/master and 0.98
> >>> that
> >>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over to Git looks like.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.96: Good!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.94: Good!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.89-fb​: Good!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55
PM, Stack <
> >>>> stack@duboce.net
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks T.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The trunk test is still
running fine.  Checkout
> >>> local
> >>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>> too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried a branch.  It seems
right too.  Asking about
> >>>>>>>> discrepancy
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tag
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listings between the branches
up in the INFRA
> >>>> issue.git.
> >>>>>>>>> Working
> >>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> file
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compares of svn and git
checkouts....  Will report
> >>>> back.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St.Ack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at
10:02 PM, Ted Yu <
> >>>>>>>> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I pointed trunk Jenkins
job to git repo and
> >>>> triggered
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> build.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far the tests are
running fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014
at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <
> >>>>>>>> yuzhihong@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I 'git clone'd master
branch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ran mvn package.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ran some tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked 'git log'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks Okay.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21,
2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack <
> >>>>>>> stack@duboce.net
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Migration looks
done:
> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next up is checking
if it is all there.  I
> >> was
> >>>>>> going
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> later
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evening but
if anyone else wants to compare,
> >>>>>> that'd be
> >>>>>>>>>> grand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St.Ack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May
21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew
> >>> Purtell <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also have
done trunk first then cherry
> >> pick
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> branches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed,
May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis
> >>> Söztutar
> >>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enis.soz@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
crew).  On feature branches, lets see.
> >>>>>> Squash
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> messy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> history
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cases?)?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One
immediate example is HBASE-10070
> >>> branch.
> >>>> We
> >>>>>>>>> wanted a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> smooth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
branch history is clean and every
> >>> commit
> >>>>>>> traces
> >>>>>>>>> to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> jira
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviews
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
"official" feature branches which
> >> will
> >>> be
> >>>>>>> pushed
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
we should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
a similar thing. If people need a
> >>>>>> working
> >>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less-clean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history,
there is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no need
to push that to the asf repo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Accumulo doc makes for a good start
> >>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>> (ignoring
> >>>>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branching
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
style is different to ours). It is
> >>> informed
> >>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> Kafka
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
workflow doc, also a good read [2].
> >> When
> >>> in
> >>>>>>> doubt,
> >>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we've
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for
> >>>> hadoopqa
> >>>>>>> run.
> >>>>>>>>> Dump
> >>>>>>>>>>> dev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
suggested solutions into this thread.
> >>> Lets
> >>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
issues we run into as a dev team and
> >> our
> >>>>>>>> (suggested)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solutions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
practice diverges from that outline in
> >>> docs
> >>>>>>> above,
> >>>>>>>>>> lets
> >>>>>>>>>>>> note
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
locally?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for
a local doc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like
both of the documents. Kafka does
> >>> not
> >>>>>> touch
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> merge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
at all. I used to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit-to-master
than cherry-pick in the
> >>>> other
> >>>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>> (if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
create a different patch and
> >>> commit
> >>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rather
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
merges across release branches. This
> >>> is
> >>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>> similar
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think
for existing release branches,
> >> the
> >>>>>> merge
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
this correctly). We always did
> >>>>>>>> trunk-first
> >>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cherry-pick
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches
approach, while Accumulo
> >> suggests
> >>>>>> that we
> >>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>> earlier
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
merge into master. Since I don't
> >> have
> >>>>>>>> experience
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
sure whether that will work for us or
> >>>> not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I need to heads-up our FB brothers and
> >>>>>> sisters
> >>>>>>>>> too....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
St.Ack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2.
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Patch+submission+and+review#Patchsubmissionandreview-Simplecontributorworkflow
>

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