[Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Mon Oct 2 13:42:07 UTC 2017

+1

On Oct 2, 2017 9:28 AM, "Ina Panova" <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a4a7306a/attachment.htm>