[Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Mon Oct 2 12:45:53 UTC 2017

+1

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I believe the cherry picking approach will avoid merge-forward problems
>> we've experienced, allow for less friction during community contribution,
>> and create a more stable project overall.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:17 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I went back and looked at PUP-3 and it does lay out some of the items
>>>> @pcreech mentions although at a higher, more general level. I’ll leave the
>>>> document as is unless someone disagrees.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, let's go ahead and vote on PUP-3. We’ll end the
>>>> voting on October 8th which is about 10 days away.
>>>>
>>>> To refresh everyone’s memory, voting is outlined in PUP-1:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#voting
>>>>
>>>> And here’s the PUP in question:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/daviddavis/pups/blob/pup3/pup-0003.md
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to this thread with your vote or any comments/questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks @pcreech for all the comments. I also believe that switching to
>>>>> a cherry-picking model will provide many benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a general FYI, the way PUP-3 is written, it allows us to adopt it
>>>>> (assuming it passes at vote) and then figure out how to roll it out later
>>>>> in coordination w/ release engineering.
>>>>>
>>>>> @daviddavis, should we start casting votes or should we wait for you
>>>>> to declare it open after maybe pushing an update?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I’d like to update PUP-3 in the next couple
>>>>>> days with the pain points you mention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I’d love the idea of having some tooling that tells us exactly
>>>>>> which commits to cherry pick into which release branch. I think we should
>>>>>> have this in place before we switch to cherry-picking if we decide to go
>>>>>> that route.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I was one of the early voices against cherrypicking during the
>>>>>>> initial vote, I figured I'd send this e-mail along with some points that
>>>>>>> have helped me be in favor of cherry picking before voting
>>>>>>> starts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In taking over the release engineering process, I have gained some
>>>>>>> perspective on our current situation and have found Cherrypicking to be an
>>>>>>> enticing concept for pulp.  Most notably, these are the
>>>>>>> things I ran into during the release process for 2.13.4 that caused
>>>>>>> some headaches and frustrations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firstly, we had an issue come up with the Pulp Docker 2 line that
>>>>>>> does not exist with the new Pulp Docker 3 line.  Dockerhub V2 Schema2 has
>>>>>>> some manifest issues that cause syncs in the Pulp Docker 2
>>>>>>> line to fail.  A change specific to this issue was created and
>>>>>>> merged to the 2.4-dev branch.  It's only application is the 2 line, but to
>>>>>>> satisfy our current tooling and policy, this change had to be
>>>>>>> merged forward through 3.0-dev and to Master, where it no longer
>>>>>>> applies and the code no longer exists in this form.  I took great care to
>>>>>>> verify that no code changes happened on 3.0-dev and master,
>>>>>>> but there is the window open for issues here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another issue that happened is when issues that are merged from a
>>>>>>> -dev branch aren't merged forward.  In this case, two issues that landed on
>>>>>>> the most recent -dev branch weren't merged forward along
>>>>>>> to master before a helper script was ran.  When this helper script
>>>>>>> ran, it was ran with the merge strategy of "ours" to ensure it's changes
>>>>>>> don't persist forward.  When "ours" is used, conflicting
>>>>>>> changes are automatically dropped from the source branch to the
>>>>>>> destination branch.  This caused the code for these two changes to
>>>>>>> dissapear on the master branch, while their commit hashes were there
>>>>>>> in the history.  I had to cherry-pick these changes forward to
>>>>>>> master from the branch they landed on to ensure the modified code exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And lastly, since 2.13.4 was a 2.13.z release that was done after
>>>>>>> 2.14.0 went out, changes had to be cherry-picked back from 2.14-dev to
>>>>>>> 2.13-dev.  Since the hash changed, these changes yet again had
>>>>>>> to be merged forward to 2.14-dev and then Master, even though they
>>>>>>> already existed in these branches, thus helping to pollute the repo history
>>>>>>> further with more duplication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While a large portion of these issues can be attributed to the merge
>>>>>>> forward everything policy, I have been in talks with other teams that
>>>>>>> follow a cherrypicking strategy about their workflow since
>>>>>>> I'm in the process of revamping pulp's release engineering process.
>>>>>>> Something that caught my attention as beneficial is a team's strategy that
>>>>>>> everything goes on master, and with some automated
>>>>>>> tooling and bookeeping in their issue tracker they can identify what
>>>>>>> cherrypicks need to be pulled back to the release branch and spit out a
>>>>>>> command for the release engineer to run to do the
>>>>>>> cherrypicks.  The release engineer resolves any conflicts, and then
>>>>>>> puts up a PR to merge into the release branch so the work goes through the
>>>>>>> normal testing + review process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, at this point I have come to believe that switching to a
>>>>>>> cherry-pick model will allow us greater flexibility and accuracy in
>>>>>>> ensuring our releases contain what we want them to contain, and
>>>>>>> don't contain what we don't want.  With tooling, it should also help
>>>>>>> simplify ensuring the right things get put in the right places.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Hrivnak
>
> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>
> Red Hat
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171002/fd70f653/attachment.htm>