[Pulp-dev] PUP-3: Proposal to change our git workflow

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Thu Jun 1 19:36:06 UTC 2017

Regarding improving our current git workflow, I do have a proposal on the
PUP-3 as an alternative:


In it, we’d merge forward less often (e.g. once a week?) and do so via PR.
I think this solves one of the biggest problems we’ve seen with merging
forward: mistakes. However, it has some issues:

1. Who will perform the merge forward and how often will they perform it?
2. The person performing the merge forward won’t have the specialized
knowledge to merge forward all the commits and fix any merge conflicts.
That said, they can work with the commit authors to do so and conflict
resolutions can be checked in the merge forward PR.
3. Contributions (as raised by @ehelms and @bmbouter) still must go against
x.y-dev branches

Maybe there are other alternatives as well?


On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 10:30 -0400, Patrick Creech wrote:
> > -1
> I'm changing my vote to -0 to better reflect my initial intention of
> expressing my dissent, but not
> blocking the passage of this outright; as I do not believe I have enough
> knowledge and experience in
> this argument to do such.  (I apologize for any frustration, I wasn't
> aware at the time my -1 would
> solely block this.  I should have RTFM'ed).
> To follow up, I want to re-summarize my dissent here.
> I don't know all the ins and outs of this argument, and decided to keep it
> this way to better
> analyze the argument with minimal prior knowledge.  This was to be able to
> come to this at voting
> time with fresh eyes, and have a layman's take.  This allowed me to take
> the public artifacts here
> at face value to understand why we are doing this, and what direction
> we're heading.
> Upon a naive initial searching of google, it appears that the general
> public sentiment is to not
> cherry-pick by default.  I don't doubt that some of these results aren't
> the most reliable, but the
> general sentiment is overwhelming.  To me, this meant that we need to have
> the reasons and benefits
> of moving to cherry-picking clearly spelled out as the obvious choice.  I
> didn't pick up on that
> sentiment from reading the e-mail chain and PUP.
> On the suggestion of improving our current merge forward process, that
> window is left open by others
> in the public record appearing to suggest this as a viable option.  If
> that is in fact an accurate
> representation, then to me that is the more preferable route as it sounds
> like improvements to our
> current course instead of charting a complete new one.  If this is not the
> case, then it probably
> should be stated clearly somewhere as to why it isn't a good option.
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170601/b2426838/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list