[Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Fri Sep 29 13:17:12 UTC 2017

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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170929/a3a81e63/attachment.htm>