[Pulp-dev] PUP-3: Proposal to change our git workflow
bbouters at redhat.com
Thu May 25 15:41:05 UTC 2017
+1 from me
I read the article, but does it really apply to us? The issues it describes
stemsfrom "when a change is cherry-picked into a branch and there is a
conflict a new commitid is created". In our case when a cherry pick back
creates a conflict we are recommending to abandon the cherry pick  which
should avoid the situation.
If we're unable to pass this vote, I'm left with two practical problems.
Mainly in terms of PRs from the community. We're getting more PRs from the
1) For almost all bugfix PRs that are opened from non core devs they target
master. With the current process we need to ask them to rebase their code
and then close+reopen the PR against the current x.y-dev branch.
2) After a community PR is merged, I need to merge it forward. If there are
any conflicts at that point I (the merger) needs to fix up code I didn't
write. That is not a good position for the person merging to be in.
I'm not able to facilitate these things anymore. If we can't pass the vote
who will handle ^ situations?
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com> wrote:
> I've come late to this topic, and wanted to wait till voting time to form
> an opinion, so I apologize
> if some of the reasons I'm voting -1 have already been discussed and
> brought up.
> While trying to come up with a decision on this topic, I googled "git
> merge vs cherry-pick". The
> overwhelming ammount of search results were basically 'don't
> cherry-pick!'. The page that I favored
> is . It brings up some good points about loosing git's internal
> tracking of commits. It seems
> cherry-picks do get new commit id's instead of using the same ones. While
> this site is basically a
> 'Don't cherry pick' opinion piece, it did make me think about our
> motivations for moving away.
> One of my concerns is we are talking about adding more procedure and
> complexity, and I'm personally
> questionable of the benefit. Based on what i've read, people are using
> this strategy successfully,
> so maybe I'm wrong on this assumption.
> The main reason that I've noticed for peoples motivations for
> cherry-picking is 'Our merge workflow
> has bit us repeatedly in the past, let's not do that anymore!'. The
> second to last paragraph under
> 'Motivation' spells this out spectacularly. The reasons for +1's with
> people I've spoken too have
> seemed more of a vote -against- our current merge forward process than
> -for- cherry-picking.
> I'm more in favor of us re-evaluating when and how we manage the merge
> forwards (as it does appear
> our current automation has been a big source of pain at least once), and
> believe that just adding
> better process and diligence around our current way of doing things will
> probably be better than
> inventing a new process and figuring out the pain points as we go there.
>  https://dan.bravender.net/2011/10/20/Why_cherry-picking_
> On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 16:00 -0400, David Davis wrote:
> > I’d like to kick off the voting on PUP-3 which is the proposal to change
> our git workflow by using
> > cherry-picks instead of merging changes forward. The proposal can be
> viewed here:
> > https://github.com/daviddavis/pups/blob/pup3/pup-0003.md
> > Feel free to submit any comments/nitpicks/etc on the PR.
> > PUP-1 outlines our voting system:
> > https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md
> > But to sum it up:
> > +1: "Will benefit the project and should definitely be adopted."
> > +0: "Might benefit the project and is acceptable."
> > -0: "Might not be the right choice but is acceptable."
> > -1: "Not the right choice and should definitely not be adopted."
> > I’ll set the initial deadline for the voting to be June 5th 9pm UTC.
> >  https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/3
> > David
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-dev mailing list
> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev