[Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Mon Oct 2 13:11:15 UTC 2017

+1

--------
Regards,

Ina Panova
Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.

"Do not go where the path may lead,
 go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171002/94971b1b/attachment.htm>