Let's see how quickly they react to the new ticket. Braden
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > My intuition is we'll need to bump the infra guys on irc.. > > On 6/10/13 1:16 PM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> wrote: > > >Since it's been nearly two weeks with no movement despite a bump, I've > >closed the old INFRA ticket and opened a new one[1] stating that we intend > >to move forward with option 2. > > > >Braden > > > >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6374 > > > > > >On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Braden Shepherdson > ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > > > >> Waiting on INFRA. I've already told them that we want to go with 2. > >> > >> Braden > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> I'm fine with option 2, lets get this done. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > SGTM > >>> > > >>> > On 6/4/13 10:44 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >I did some experimenting on my local disk to see what would happen > >>>if > >>> we > >>> > >did go with option 2. It's pretty sane and safe: > >>> > > > >>> > >- If someone re-clones as requested, all is well. > >>> > > > >>> > >- If someone doesn't re-clone, then there are two cases: > >>> > > - Merging the old local master against the new remote master: > >>> Massive > >>> > >conflicts; should remind people that there was something about this > >>> repo. > >>> > > - Pushing the old local master to the new remote master: Fails > >>> because > >>> > >it's not a fast-forward merge. > >>> > > > >>> > >So that's pretty okay. It would take real effort to resolve these > >>> > >conflicts > >>> > >and try to push the result. No one is likely to do that, and they > >>>still > >>> > >can't cause lasting damage unless it's a committer. All the > >>>committers > >>> are > >>> > >aware of this problem, and getting that huge conflict is likely to > >>> remind > >>> > >them of this. > >>> > > > >>> > >Braden > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >> Thanks for taking that on Braden > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On 6/3/13 10:15 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" <bra...@chromium.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> >I've bumped the INFRA ticket[1], I'll keep this thread up to date > >>> with > >>> > >>any > >>> > >> >changes there. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >Braden > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >> Option 2! Let's move forward and get this sorted. > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> On 5/29/13 1:17 PM, "Jesse MacFadyen" <purplecabb...@gmail.com > > > >>> > >>wrote: > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> >I am liking option 2 now. Seems easy enough. > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >Cheers, > >>> > >> >> > Jesse > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >Sent from my iPhone5 > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >On 2013-05-29, at 9:06 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >For the record, I don't mind a reclone, so long as there are > >>>no > >>> > >> >>negative > >>> > >> >> >repercussions, ie, (1) its not called master2 and (2) there > >>>is no > >>> > >>way > >>> > >> >>for > >>> > >> >> >anyone to shoot us in the foot if they forget to re-clone > >>> properly > >>> > >>and > >>> > >> >> >start doing merges/pushes/whatever. > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >So, if (2) fails loudly thats my preference. Otherwise, I > >>>don't > >>> > >>mind > >>> > >> >>(4) > >>> > >> >> >but others might, and I hate (3) more than (1) :) > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >-Michal > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Braden Shepherdson > >>> > >> >> ><bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> This would be an example of "continuing to pay the price for > >>> not > >>> > >> >>being > >>> > >> >> >> willing to re-clone 1, 3, 6, 12 months ago." We can avoid > >>>all > >>> of > >>> > >>that > >>> > >> >> >> nonsense with three lines. > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> Braden > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Michal Mocny > >>> > >><mmo...@chromium.org> > >>> > >> >> >> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >>> Can we go with (1) and still keep master2 around (perhaps > >>> rename > >>> > >>it > >>> > >> >>to > >>> > >> >> >>> something sensible) so that we can still get full history > >>>but > >>> > >>with > >>> > >> >>one > >>> > >> >> >>> level of indirection: > >>> > >> >> >>> - The mega commit could have a commit message such as "THIS > >>> WAS A > >>> > >> >>HACKY > >>> > >> >> >>> MERGE, FOR REAL HISTORY LOOK IN THE OLD_FUTURE BRANCH" > >>> > >> >> >>> - When you bit blame and see that as the commit > >>>responsible, > >>> you > >>> > >> >>know > >>> > >> >> >>>you > >>> > >> >> >>> have to git blame again in the other branch > >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >>> -Michal > >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ian Clelland > >>> > >> >><iclell...@google.com> > >>> > >> >> >>> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >>>> SInce 2 and 3 both require re-cloning the repository, I'd > >>> much > >>> > >> >>rather > >>> > >> >> >> go > >>> > >> >> >>>> with 2, and rename the branches appropriately. > >>> > >> >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Brian LeRoux > >>><b...@brian.io> > >>> > >>wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> ya the rename easiest > >>> > >> >> >>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Braden Shepherdson < > >>> > >> >> >>> bra...@chromium.org > >>> > >> >> >>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> I'll keep this thread up to date with INFRA's responses. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> I asked INFRA about options and their implications. > >>>These > >>> are > >>> > >>the > >>> > >> >> >>> four > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> options I described, after I was informed that our > >>>original > >>> > >> >>request > >>> > >> >> >>>> would > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> actually require everyone to re-clone the repo. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 1. Check out master, delete all the files, copy in all > >>>the > >>> > >>files > >>> > >> >> >>> from > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master2, check them all in. This keep the branching the > >>> same, > >>> > >>and > >>> > >> >> >> no > >>> > >> >> >>>> one > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> would need to re-clone. But it also makes the history > >>> nearly > >>> > >> >> >> useless > >>> > >> >> >>>>> before > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> that point. I dislike this option, but it's there. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 2. Rename master to old_master or similar, and rename > >>> master2 > >>> > >>to > >>> > >> >> >>>> master. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Since everyone is re-cloning anyway, this is possible. > >>> Keeps > >>> > >>the > >>> > >> >> >> name > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> consistent. This might be nasty if someone tries to > >>>merge > >>> > >>between > >>> > >> >> >> an > >>> > >> >> >>>> old > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master and the new master. Unless git can notice that > >>> things > >>> > >>are > >>> > >> >> >>> wrong > >>> > >> >> >>>>> and > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> they should re-clone. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 3. My original request to move HEAD. Exposes the master2 > >>> name > >>> > >>and > >>> > >> >> >>>>> requires > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> everyone to use it. Still requires a re-clone. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> 4. Abandon the repository and recreate it under a new > >>>name, > >>> > >> >>pushing > >>> > >> >> >>>> only > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> master2 as the new master. Requires a re-clone and > >>>changing > >>> > >>the > >>> > >> >> >> name. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Probably not, but it's an option. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> What do people think? I'm most partial to 2, since it > >>> > >>preserves > >>> > >> >>the > >>> > >> >> >>>>> master > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> name and it's hard to avoid recloning. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> Braden > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jesse > >>> > >><purplecabb...@gmail.com> > >>> > >> >> >>>> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> What is the resolution on this? > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> My opinion: History is in the past, move on. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I think it's okay if it is history is messy, or even if > >>> has a > >>> > >> >>few > >>> > >> >> >>>>> duplicate > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> commits. Tangles and all. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> @purplecabbage > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> risingj.com > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Braden Shepherdson < > >>> > >> >> >>>>> bra...@chromium.org > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> I think so, but only if we're prepared to keep the > >>> tangled > >>> > >> >> >> history > >>> > >> >> >>>> and > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> duplicate about 30 commits. Several mistakes were made > >>> with > >>> > >>the > >>> > >> >> >>>>> branching > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> and rebasing of things on master, and there's a lot of > >>> > >> >> >> duplication > >>> > >> >> >>>> and > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> confusion in the history. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> When you get in this morning, I can show you the > >>> whiteboard > >>> > >> >> >>> diagram > >>> > >> >> >>>> of > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> the > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> long version above, and then you can look at the > >>> histories > >>> > >>of > >>> > >> >> >>> master > >>> > >> >> >>>>> and > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master2 on GitX. I think you'll agree it's worth > >>>moving > >>> > >>forward > >>> > >> >> >>> with > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master2. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Braden > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >>> > >> >> >>>> agri...@chromium.org > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Could we merge master2 into master with: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> git merge --strategy-option=theirs master2 > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Braden Shepherdson < > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> bra...@chromium.org > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> tl;dr version: cordova-cli now has a master2 branch > >>> that > >>> > >> >> >>> should > >>> > >> >> >>>> be > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> treated > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> as master going forward. DO NOT use master or future > >>> > >> >> >> anymore. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Short version: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I tried to merge future and master. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I couldn't because the history is a train wreck. > >>>The > >>> > >> >> >>> morbidly > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> curious > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> should see [2]. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Ian and I dug through the history, and played CSI > >>> until > >>> > >>we > >>> > >> >> >>>>> figured > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> out > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> what had happened, and found a sensible way to > >>> > >>reconstruct a > >>> > >> >> >>>> sane > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> branch. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - This branch merged fairly neatly with future. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - It is now committed as the new branch master2. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - The original master branch is deprecated. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - I have filed an INFRA ticket[1] to get them to > >>>point > >>> > >>HEAD > >>> > >> >> >> at > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> master2, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> and > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> delete the old master branch. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - Use master2 from now on. DO NOT touch the old > >>>master > >>> or > >>> > >> >> >>> future > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branches > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> anymore. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'll keep the list updated on the state of the INFRA > >>> > >>ticket. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Braden > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6302 > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] Long version: > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> A long time ago, I forked cli's master to create > >>> future. I > >>> > >> >> >>>>> committed > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> a > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> half-dozen changes or so. Sometime later, a 2.7.x > >>> branch > >>> > >>was > >>> > >> >> >>>>> forked > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> /from > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> future/. Several changes were made here. Later it > >>>was > >>> > >>merged > >>> > >> >> >>>> back > >>> > >> >> >>>>> in, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> /to > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> master/. The same changes were later rebased onto > >>> master > >>> > >>and > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> committed > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> again, duplicating them. Then this branch was merged > >>> with > >>> > >> >> >>> master > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> again, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> creating a /third/ copy of the changes originally > >>>from > >>> > >>this > >>> > >> >> >>>> 2.7.x > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branch. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, some of the changes from future were > >>> reverted > >>> > >>by > >>> > >> >> >>> hand > >>> > >> >> >>>>> (as > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> opposed to with git revert) in master. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finally some new changes were made to future and > >>> master. > >>> > >>It > >>> > >> >> >>>> looks, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> according to git, like there are only these changes > >>>on > >>> the > >>> > >> >> >>>> future > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> branch, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> since the earlier ones were merged by accident some > >>> time > >>> > >> >> >> ago. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> When I came along and tried to merge master and > >>>future > >>> in > >>> > >> >> >>> either > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> direction, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> or rebase in either direction, those older future > >>> changes > >>> > >> >> >>> stayed > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> deleted, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> because according to git they were made on the same > >>> > >>branch. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Moral of the story: Don't take a branch off master > >>> (like > >>> > >> >> >>>> future), > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>> fork > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> it, > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> commit to it, and then merge it back to master. > >>>That's > >>> > >>what > >>> > >> >> >>>>> started > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> most > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> of > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> the insanity, because now future is partially merged > >>> into > >>> > >> >> >>> master > >>> > >> >> >>>>> even > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> though it's not being treated that way. > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I need a drink. > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >
