impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Apple <>
Subject Re: Impala 3.x (and 2.x)
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:07:18 GMT
Which gerrit branch were you thinking most patches would go to?

If they go to 3.0, then would have to be amended to
push to gerrit, bypassing code review. I think that's possible, but
I'm not 100%.

There is also security to think about, since the users
can push a few commits at a time, including ones they didn't author or

We'll also want to clarify and
keep it consistent with the git & gerrit statuses quo.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Philip Zeyliger <> wrote:
> Hi!
>> Should we start tagging all candidates with a common label, e.g.
> include-in-v3?
> I agree with Lars's suggestion for tagging JIRAs with include-in-v3. I've
> done so, and the relevant query is
> .
>> What sort of process were you thinking of for the automation?
> I think amending, as you suggest, is a great idea. I think
> we have a string ("not for 2.x") which can be used in commit messages to
> discourage the cherrypick for the changes we want to be exclusive until we
> want to change the defaults in the other direction. (I.e., right now the
> string is "not for 2.x", but at some point the string may be "should be
> cherrypicked to 2.x".)
> I do think that we want to create a gerrit branch to allow 2.x-only changes
> to be reviewed in the straight-forward fashion.
> -- Philip
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Jim Apple <> wrote:
>> I'm on-board with all of this. (I also would be OK delaying 3.0, if
>> that were the consensus).
>> There is one issue in here I think we should dive into:
>> > Both master and 2.x would be active, and, at least for the beginning,
>> > changes would automatically be pulled into the 2.x line, unless
>> explicitly
>> > blacklisted.
>> What sort of process were you thinking of for the automation?
>> Some context, starting from what we all likely already know:
>> The bulk of the code review and pre-merge testing results are recorded
>> in gerrit. Once the pre-merge testing passes, a patch is cherry-picked
>> to the git repo hosted with gerrit. To get the patch to the Impala git
>> repo hosted by the ASF, bin/ is run by a human who
>> supplies his or her ASF credentials. That script copies the commit to
>> the ASF git repo.
>> Often, 2-3 commits will pile up in gerrit before some committer runs
>> that script and pushes them to ASF.
>> We could edit that script (bin/ to help with the cherry
>> picks, so that each time a commit is made, the committer must say
>> whether the commit goes in 2.x, 3.0, or both, but the commits are
>> often made by people who didn't author the patches, so they may not be
>> sure which branch to go in.
>> Additionally, gerrit code review is intimately tied to the git repo.
>> Gerrit runs a git repo under-the-hood, and I believe that the branch
>> on gerrit's git that changes are cherry-picked to after pre-merge
>> testing is identical to the Impala git repo hosted by the ASF - down
>> to the hashes, even. If we think 2.x and 3.0 will diverge enough that
>> we'll want different code reviews for different branches, then we
>> might want two different branches on gerrit, too.

View raw message