[Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits
daviddavis at redhat.com
Thu Feb 2 17:50:06 UTC 2017
I think the merging forward seems pretty straightforward as well (with some
exceptions) but one of the my concerns is expecting community contributors
to know our process, the last release branch, etc when they open a PR.
Maybe this isn’t something to worry about though if we don’t have enough
contributions from outside the core Pulp team.
Another one of my concerns is the git history being cluttered by merging
forward every time we commit a bug fix or hot fix (see my original email).
Thinking through this a bit though, what if we merged forward commits less
often? One option might be to only merge forward when we do a release.
Also, I like the idea of creating a proposal and trying out cherrypicking
to see what the benefits would be and if we actually meet those benefits by
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
> This comes up periodically, and we've had split opinions for a long time.
> I've been in the camp that likes merging, and finds it intuitive. But I'm
> open to trying cherry-picking since there is a lot of interest.
> I must admit, I am always surprised when people describe merging forward
> as complicated. For me, it boils down to this:
> - Features happen on master. No merging or cherry-picking required.
> - Bug fixes happen on the last release branch. Merge your bugfix branch to
> master and the release branch. Simple.
> - Hotfixes are a rare exception that require slightly more thought, but
> are still easy to reason about. If in doubt, "git merge-base [list all the
> places you want to merge your fix]" tells you where to branch from.
> That's the extent of my thought process when merging forward. I am
> generally interested to know more about how this process causes friction.
> But all of that said, I'm very happy to give cherry-picking a try. As
> Brian said, my main concern would just be tracking where a change has been
> applied. This is something I value a lot in the merge model.
> If we do switch, I think we should first write down specifically what
> benefits we expect to get. That would help in two ways: 1) Make sure
> everyone is on the same page about what we expect to gain. I suspect there
> are differing assumptions across the group. 2) Enable us to evaluate
> afterward to what extent the change was successful.
> Lastly, our current branching model was inspired by this classic approach:
> If you're not familiar, it's worth a read for perspective. Their "develop"
> branch is our "master". And obviously we don't do things in quite the same
> way, but the general principles are the same.
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> The main concern for me is how to track the cherry picks in Redmine.
>> Using the rebase and merge approach, or if Github had a dedicate cherry
>> pick feature, we still need a way in Redmine to know if any given bugfix
>> has been applied to older release streams, i.e. the current bugfix release
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > Thinking out loud, it would be nice if github would support a "cherry
>>> pick" PR
>>> I think you can. The submitter just needs to open a PR against some
>>> branch other than master, and the merger needs to select the rebase and
>>> merge <https://github.com/blog/2243-rebase-and-merge-pull-requests> GUI
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev