[Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Fri Sep 29 14:08:02 UTC 2017

+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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170929/10ca12ea/attachment.htm>