[Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Fri Sep 29 13:53:52 UTC 2017

+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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170929/399c07b9/attachment.htm>