You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@asterixdb.apache.org by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> on 2015/07/13 21:01:37 UTC
[IMPORTANT] Git issues
Hey all,
If you haven't pulled from
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
(i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
moment.
Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
and overwrite the latest commit from.
Thanks,
-Ian
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
That's a machine we co-opted for Gerrit teporarily a few months ago, I
figured somehow folks still had visibility into it via some sort of
weird DNS error. I brought it back up today with a restored snapshot
of our Gerrit instance today for testing.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> Were you
>> pulling from vitalstatistix?
>
> And, what, the heck, is that, again?
>
> Sorry,
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Were you
> pulling from vitalstatistix?
And, what, the heck, is that, again?
Sorry,
Jochen
--
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
OK, I actually see what exactly happened. The problem is that you
still have your origin set to Google code. You set your origin to ASF
or the Github mirror of it and then git reset your master branch. The
testing instance I was using still had the old push script set, but
that repository will be readonly in a matter of weeks and permanently
deleted after that. I'm surprised folks are still using that as their
upstream.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Oh, wait, where on earth did you get that commit? I put that up on the
> old Gerrit instance to stage it, but both ASF and the real Gerrit
> instance are still at c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc and
> 900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e, respectively. Were you
> pulling from vitalstatistix?
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> I didnt do it yet, so thats probably not the issue ;) . You're sure you
>> added that email to your Gerrit account?
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2015 11:55 PM, "Ildar Absalyamov" <il...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> After Ian’s merge commit I am not able to submit a core review:
>>>
>>> remote: ERROR: In commit a054ac0d342b94ab007321662696f29e9a7f8062
>>> remote: ERROR: committer email address ian@maxons.email
>>> remote: ERROR: does not match your user account.
>>> remote: ERROR:
>>> remote: ERROR: The following addresses are currently registered:
>>> remote: ERROR: ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com
>>> remote: ERROR:
>>> remote: ERROR: To register an email address, please visit:
>>> remote: ERROR: https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/settings/contact
>>> remote:
>>>
>>> > On Jul 14, 2015, at 20:30, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Chris,
>>> >
>>> > Let's figure out the best way to do it while adhering to ASF infra
>>> > rules.
>>> >
>>> > I understand things are different in ASF that from outside but we need
>>> > to figure out the right rather than either my way or none attitude.
>>> >
>>> > - Henry
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct
>>> >> layout
>>> >> for us.
>>> >>
>>> >> What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to
>>> >> the
>>> >> wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
>>> >> permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set
>>> >> up
>>> >> the "wrong" way.
>>> >>
>>> >> My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF
>>> >> mirror
>>> >> and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ceej
>>> >> aka Chris Hillery
>>> >> On Jul 13, 2015 3:34 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi, Ian,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
>>> >>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>>> >>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>>> >>> branch".
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>>> >>> we do to fix that?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Jochen
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>> >>>> Hey all,
>>> >>>> If you haven't pulled from
>>> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>>> >>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>>> >>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>>> >>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
>>> >>>> committed
>>> >>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>>> >>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>>> >>>> moment.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>>> >>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>>> >>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>>> >>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>>> >>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks,
>>> >>>> -Ian
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>>> >>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>>> >>> Three)
>>> >>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ildar
>>>
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
Oh, wait, where on earth did you get that commit? I put that up on the
old Gerrit instance to stage it, but both ASF and the real Gerrit
instance are still at c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc and
900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e, respectively. Were you
pulling from vitalstatistix?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> I didnt do it yet, so thats probably not the issue ;) . You're sure you
> added that email to your Gerrit account?
>
> -Ian
>
> On Jul 14, 2015 11:55 PM, "Ildar Absalyamov" <il...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> After Ian’s merge commit I am not able to submit a core review:
>>
>> remote: ERROR: In commit a054ac0d342b94ab007321662696f29e9a7f8062
>> remote: ERROR: committer email address ian@maxons.email
>> remote: ERROR: does not match your user account.
>> remote: ERROR:
>> remote: ERROR: The following addresses are currently registered:
>> remote: ERROR: ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com
>> remote: ERROR:
>> remote: ERROR: To register an email address, please visit:
>> remote: ERROR: https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/settings/contact
>> remote:
>>
>> > On Jul 14, 2015, at 20:30, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > Let's figure out the best way to do it while adhering to ASF infra
>> > rules.
>> >
>> > I understand things are different in ASF that from outside but we need
>> > to figure out the right rather than either my way or none attitude.
>> >
>> > - Henry
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu>
>> > wrote:
>> >> That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct
>> >> layout
>> >> for us.
>> >>
>> >> What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to
>> >> the
>> >> wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
>> >> permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set
>> >> up
>> >> the "wrong" way.
>> >>
>> >> My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF
>> >> mirror
>> >> and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
>> >>
>> >> Ceej
>> >> aka Chris Hillery
>> >> On Jul 13, 2015 3:34 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi, Ian,
>> >>>
>> >>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
>> >>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>> >>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>> >>> branch".
>> >>>
>> >>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>> >>> we do to fix that?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jochen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >>>> Hey all,
>> >>>> If you haven't pulled from
>> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>> >>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>> >>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>> >>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
>> >>>> committed
>> >>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>> >>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>> >>>> moment.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>> >>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>> >>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>> >>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>> >>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> -Ian
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>> >>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>> >>> Three)
>> >>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ildar
>>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
I didnt do it yet, so thats probably not the issue ;) . You're sure you
added that email to your Gerrit account?
-Ian
On Jul 14, 2015 11:55 PM, "Ildar Absalyamov" <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> After Ian’s merge commit I am not able to submit a core review:
>
> remote: ERROR: In commit a054ac0d342b94ab007321662696f29e9a7f8062
> remote: ERROR: committer email address ian@maxons.email
> remote: ERROR: does not match your user account.
> remote: ERROR:
> remote: ERROR: The following addresses are currently registered:
> remote: ERROR: ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com
> remote: ERROR:
> remote: ERROR: To register an email address, please visit:
> remote: ERROR: https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/settings/contact
> remote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2015, at 20:30, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Let's figure out the best way to do it while adhering to ASF infra rules.
> >
> > I understand things are different in ASF that from outside but we need
> > to figure out the right rather than either my way or none attitude.
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu>
> wrote:
> >> That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct layout
> >> for us.
> >>
> >> What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to
> the
> >> wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
> >> permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set
> up
> >> the "wrong" way.
> >>
> >> My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF
> mirror
> >> and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
> >>
> >> Ceej
> >> aka Chris Hillery
> >> On Jul 13, 2015 3:34 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Ian,
> >>>
> >>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
> >>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
> >>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
> >>> branch".
> >>>
> >>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
> >>> we do to fix that?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Jochen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >>>> Hey all,
> >>>> If you haven't pulled from
> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
> >>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
> >>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
> >>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
> >>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
> >>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
> >>>> moment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
> >>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
> >>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
> >>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
> >>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> -Ian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> >>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
> >>>
>
> Best regards,
> Ildar
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ildar Absalyamov <il...@gmail.com>.
After Ian’s merge commit I am not able to submit a core review:
remote: ERROR: In commit a054ac0d342b94ab007321662696f29e9a7f8062
remote: ERROR: committer email address ian@maxons.email
remote: ERROR: does not match your user account.
remote: ERROR:
remote: ERROR: The following addresses are currently registered:
remote: ERROR: ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com
remote: ERROR:
remote: ERROR: To register an email address, please visit:
remote: ERROR: https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/settings/contact
remote:
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 20:30, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Let's figure out the best way to do it while adhering to ASF infra rules.
>
> I understand things are different in ASF that from outside but we need
> to figure out the right rather than either my way or none attitude.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu> wrote:
>> That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct layout
>> for us.
>>
>> What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to the
>> wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
>> permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set up
>> the "wrong" way.
>>
>> My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF mirror
>> and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
>>
>> Ceej
>> aka Chris Hillery
>> On Jul 13, 2015 3:34 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Ian,
>>>
>>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
>>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>>> branch".
>>>
>>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>>> we do to fix that?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jochen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>> Hey all,
>>>> If you haven't pulled from
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
>>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>>>> moment.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>>>
Best regards,
Ildar
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
I guess there are other issues like the ones David brought up (emails
to the list about comments there, etc). Hopefully they're addressable
or misunderstandings of how we do things.
-Ian
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu> wrote:
> I'm probably missing something, but - why do we need to "trade" anything to
> use Gerrit? With our current working method, the result is that all commits
> are both authored and pushed to ASF by the initial committer with no
> changes. What rule or guideline do we run afoul of that would prevent us
> from continuing to work this way?
>
> Ceej
> aka Chris Hillery
> On Jul 15, 2015 2:39 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> > so I don't
>> > quite see where the value add would come from. We can do all kinds of
>>
>> There's no direct added value for the project. But I'd view this as a
>> possible item to trade for when it comes to getting the incubators
>> endorsal regarding the Gerrit instance.
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu>.
I'm probably missing something, but - why do we need to "trade" anything to
use Gerrit? With our current working method, the result is that all commits
are both authored and pushed to ASF by the initial committer with no
changes. What rule or guideline do we run afoul of that would prevent us
from continuing to work this way?
Ceej
aka Chris Hillery
On Jul 15, 2015 2:39 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > so I don't
> > quite see where the value add would come from. We can do all kinds of
>
> There's no direct added value for the project. But I'd view this as a
> possible item to trade for when it comes to getting the incubators
> endorsal regarding the Gerrit instance.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> so I don't
> quite see where the value add would come from. We can do all kinds of
There's no direct added value for the project. But I'd view this as a
possible item to trade for when it comes to getting the incubators
endorsal regarding the Gerrit instance.
Jochen
--
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
We could use ASF's Jenkins, but we have a pretty powerful server here
that's more or less reserved just for building our stuff, so I don't
quite see where the value add would come from. We can do all kinds of
stuff with it that's handy but not appropriate for a public service,
like giving shell accounts to attach profilers to stuck builds, and so
on.
- Ian
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Chris Hillery <ch...@hillery.land> wrote:
>
>> Also, we
>> do make use of Gerrit's integration with Jenkins for launching test runs on
>> code reviews. Certainly that could all be rewritten to work with Github PRs
>> (or Review Board, or...), but that seems like a pretty high price to pay if
>> we don't need to.
>
> Having no experience with Gerrit, so I've got to ask: Would it be
> possible to move the Jenkins part to the ASF, like
>
> https://builds.apache.org/
>
> That would certainly be helpful.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Chris Hillery <ch...@hillery.land> wrote:
> Also, we
> do make use of Gerrit's integration with Jenkins for launching test runs on
> code reviews. Certainly that could all be rewritten to work with Github PRs
> (or Review Board, or...), but that seems like a pretty high price to pay if
> we don't need to.
Having no experience with Gerrit, so I've got to ask: Would it be
possible to move the Jenkins part to the ASF, like
https://builds.apache.org/
That would certainly be helpful.
Jochen
--
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Chris Hillery <ch...@hillery.land>.
Yes, that's also a possibility, although it wouldn't be my first choice,
for what that's worth. The Github PR interface is pretty minimal, in my
experience. Gerrit is noisy and obtuse but it is pretty powerful. Also, we
do make use of Gerrit's integration with Jenkins for launching test runs on
code reviews. Certainly that could all be rewritten to work with Github PRs
(or Review Board, or...), but that seems like a pretty high price to pay if
we don't need to.
Ceej
aka Chris Hillery
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi, Chris,
>
> sorry for chiming in (I seem to be doing that a lot, lately.)
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Chris Hillery <ch...@hillery.land>
> wrote:
>
> > process, set their upstream "origin" remote be set to the read-only
> Github
> > mirror.
>
> I agree with you, Chris, that the Gerrit discussion is orthogonal.
> (That discussion was mainly triggered by me in order to find a
> resolution, which might be acceptable for both the Incubator as the
> overseeing entity, and for the project members of AsterixDB.
>
> Using the github mirror as a remote "origin" might lead to another
> possible reolution. The Github mirrors are officially endorsed, thus
> accepted by the Incubator. So, if AsterixDB could replace Gerrit with
> Github PRs, we'd essentially have the same situation in terms of
> process (but with slightly less comfort, and a different UI). I can
> even imagine, that, in the foreseeable future, there will be an
> automated way back from the Github Mirror to the ASF repository, given
> how active users are on the Github mirrors by creating PRs.
>
> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Chris,
sorry for chiming in (I seem to be doing that a lot, lately.)
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Chris Hillery <ch...@hillery.land> wrote:
> process, set their upstream "origin" remote be set to the read-only Github
> mirror.
I agree with you, Chris, that the Gerrit discussion is orthogonal.
(That discussion was mainly triggered by me in order to find a
resolution, which might be acceptable for both the Incubator as the
overseeing entity, and for the project members of AsterixDB.
Using the github mirror as a remote "origin" might lead to another
possible reolution. The Github mirrors are officially endorsed, thus
accepted by the Incubator. So, if AsterixDB could replace Gerrit with
Github PRs, we'd essentially have the same situation in terms of
process (but with slightly less comfort, and a different UI). I can
even imagine, that, in the foreseeable future, there will be an
automated way back from the Github Mirror to the ASF repository, given
how active users are on the Github mirrors by creating PRs.
Jochen
--
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Chris Hillery <ch...@hillery.land>.
No attitude was intended. I was typing on my phone in the doctor's waiting
room so I tried to be concise. Apologies if it came across badly.
I stand by what I said, though. I don't think the problem is Gerrit (not
that Gerrit doesn't have its fair share of problems). The problem is having
unrestricted write access to the canonical repository, compounded by rules
that prevent fixing mistakes when they are inevitably made. And my best
suggestion for complying with these ASF infra rules while maintaining a
safe and sane working method is to have devs, as a day-to-day standard
process, set their upstream "origin" remote be set to the read-only Github
mirror.
The discussion of whether Gerrit can fit into the ASF rules at all is, I
think, a completely orthogonal discussion, although both discussions need
to reach a conclusion before we can all be comfortably working again. There
is a separate thread regarding Gerrit already, so I'd suggest continuing
that discussion there.
Ceej
aka Chris Hillery
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Let's figure out the best way to do it while adhering to ASF infra rules.
>
> I understand things are different in ASF that from outside but we need
> to figure out the right rather than either my way or none attitude.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu> wrote:
> > That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct layout
> > for us.
> >
> > What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to the
> > wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
> > permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set
> up
> > the "wrong" way.
> >
> > My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF
> mirror
> > and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
> >
> > Ceej
> > aka Chris Hillery
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
Let's figure out the best way to do it while adhering to ASF infra rules.
I understand things are different in ASF that from outside but we need
to figure out the right rather than either my way or none attitude.
- Henry
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu> wrote:
> That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct layout
> for us.
>
> What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to the
> wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
> permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set up
> the "wrong" way.
>
> My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF mirror
> and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
>
> Ceej
> aka Chris Hillery
> On Jul 13, 2015 3:34 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Ian,
>>
>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>> branch".
>>
>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>> we do to fix that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> > If you haven't pulled from
>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>> > (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>> > until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>> > and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
>> > to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>> > with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>> > moment.
>> >
>> > Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>> > asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>> > reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>> > the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>> > and overwrite the latest commit from.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Chris Hillery <ch...@lambda.nu>.
That is correct, and that doesn't need fixing - it is the correct layout
for us.
What needs fixing is finding a way to prevent accidentally pushing to the
wrong git remote. Unfortunately the ASF repositories don't offer any
permissions or other mechanisms to help; in fact they require us to set up
the "wrong" way.
My recommendation would be for all devs to pull from the github ASF mirror
and push to Gerrit, and not have a remote for ASF at all.
Ceej
aka Chris Hillery
On Jul 13, 2015 3:34 PM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi, Ian,
>
> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
> branch".
>
> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
> we do to fix that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jochen
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > If you haven't pulled from
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
> > (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
> > until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
> > and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
> > to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
> > with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
> > moment.
> >
> > Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
> > asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
> > reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
> > the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
> > and overwrite the latest commit from.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Ian
>
>
>
> --
> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
> best plan as I see it:
>
> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the incorrect
> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
> master, is likely the least painful option.
>
> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled c66d23a5
> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once the
> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>
> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>
ASF master branch does not allow force pushes, and rewriting history
won't be permitted. The ASF repo is the canonical repository for the
project.
--David
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
I believe I have a way to fix this without having to rewrite history,
actually. A simple merge between the two divergent repositories should
do the trick. The merge is trivial because there are no content
differences between the HEAD in Gerrit's master and ASF's master. I'll
go ahead and do this tomorrow if there are no objections, and that'll
solve it.
- Ian
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> It doesn't matter, we can rebase either way.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Ildar Absalyamov
> <il...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So In the meantime, what’s the proper way to pull the master in order to make a code review?
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:05, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not a big deal. we can figure that out once a solution to the
>>> current issue is agreed on.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate
>>>> this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review
>>>> actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop
>>>> of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them.
>>>>
>>>> -Ian
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's
>>>> comment, I
>>>>> am not sure that would be the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
>>>>>> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
>>>>>> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -I an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review
>>>> with
>>>>>>> this and submitted a new batch to the review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How should this be handled?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
>>>>>>>> best plan as I see it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
>>>>>>>> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
>>>>>>>> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
>>>>>>>> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
>>>>>>>> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
>>>>>>>> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
>>>>>>>> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
>>>>>>>> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
>>>>>>>> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the
>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
>>>>>>>> master, is likely the least painful option.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled
>>>> c66d23a5
>>>>>>>> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
>>>>>>>> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
>>>>>>>> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
>>>>>>>> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
>>>>>>>> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
>>>>>>>> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jochen,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I
>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which
>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
>>>>>>>>> directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
>>>>>>>>> Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The
>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>> for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from
>>>> Gerrit,
>>>>>>>>> and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it
>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like
>>>> working
>>>>>>>>> with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
>>>>>>>>> error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the
>>>> script
>>>>>>>>> wasn't used, not sure which).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Ian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Ian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>>>>>>>>>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit
>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>> branch".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> we do to fix that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jochen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>>>> If you haven't pulled from
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for
>>>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
>>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly
>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>>>>>>>>>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc ,
>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to
>>>> force-push
>>>>>>>>>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Ian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>>>>>>>>>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>>>>>> Three)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ildar
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
It doesn't matter, we can rebase either way.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Ildar Absalyamov
<il...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So In the meantime, what’s the proper way to pull the master in order to make a code review?
>
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:05, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is not a big deal. we can figure that out once a solution to the
>> current issue is agreed on.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate
>>> this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review
>>> actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop
>>> of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them.
>>>
>>> -Ian
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's
>>> comment, I
>>>> am not sure that would be the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
>>>>> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
>>>>> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
>>>>>
>>>>> -I an
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review
>>> with
>>>>>> this and submitted a new batch to the review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How should this be handled?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
>>>>>>> best plan as I see it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
>>>>>>> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
>>>>>>> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
>>>>>>> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
>>>>>>> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
>>>>>>> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
>>>>>>> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
>>>>>>> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
>>>>>>> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the
>>> incorrect
>>>>>>> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
>>>>>>> master, is likely the least painful option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled
>>> c66d23a5
>>>>>>> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
>>>>>>> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once
>>> the
>>>>>>> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
>>>>>>> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
>>>>>>> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
>>>>>>> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
>>>>>>> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jochen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I
>>> would
>>>>>>>> say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which
>>> was
>>>>>>>> preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
>>>>>>>> directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
>>>>>>>> Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The
>>> reason
>>>>>>>> for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from
>>> Gerrit,
>>>>>>>> and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it
>>> being
>>>>>>>> a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like
>>> working
>>>>>>>> with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
>>>>>>>> error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one
>>> can
>>>>>>>> submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the
>>> script
>>>>>>>> wasn't used, not sure which).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Ian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are
>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>>>>>>>>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit
>>> master
>>>>>>>>> branch".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what
>>> can
>>>>>>>>> we do to fix that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jochen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>>> If you haven't pulled from
>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please
>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for
>>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
>>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly
>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>>>>>>>>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc ,
>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to
>>> force-push
>>>>>>>>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> -Ian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>>>>>>>>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>>>>> Three)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>
> Best regards,
> Ildar
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ildar Absalyamov <il...@gmail.com>.
So In the meantime, what’s the proper way to pull the master in order to make a code review?
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 20:05, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is not a big deal. we can figure that out once a solution to the
> current issue is agreed on.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate
>> this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review
>> actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop
>> of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them.
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's
>> comment, I
>>> am not sure that would be the way to go.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
>>>> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
>>>> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
>>>>
>>>> -I an
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review
>> with
>>>>> this and submitted a new batch to the review.
>>>>>
>>>>> How should this be handled?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
>>>>>> best plan as I see it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
>>>>>> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
>>>>>> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
>>>>>> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
>>>>>> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
>>>>>> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
>>>>>> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
>>>>>> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
>>>>>> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the
>> incorrect
>>>>>> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
>>>>>> master, is likely the least painful option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled
>> c66d23a5
>>>>>> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
>>>>>> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once
>> the
>>>>>> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
>>>>>> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
>>>>>> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
>>>>>> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
>>>>>> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Jochen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I
>> would
>>>>>>> say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which
>> was
>>>>>>> preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
>>>>>>> directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
>>>>>>> Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The
>> reason
>>>>>>> for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from
>> Gerrit,
>>>>>>> and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it
>> being
>>>>>>> a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like
>> working
>>>>>>> with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
>>>>>>> error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one
>> can
>>>>>>> submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the
>> script
>>>>>>> wasn't used, not sure which).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Ian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi, Ian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are
>>>> currently
>>>>>>>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>>>>>>>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit
>> master
>>>>>>>> branch".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what
>> can
>>>>>>>> we do to fix that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jochen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>> If you haven't pulled from
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>>>>>>>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please
>> don't
>>>>>>>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for
>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
>>>> committed
>>>>>>>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly
>> agree
>>>>>>>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at
>> the
>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>>>>>>>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc ,
>>>> please
>>>>>>>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you
>> have
>>>>>>>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to
>> force-push
>>>>>>>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> -Ian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>>>>>>>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>>>> Three)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Amoudi, Abdullah.
Best regards,
Ildar
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>.
This is not a big deal. we can figure that out once a solution to the
current issue is agreed on.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate
> this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review
> actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop
> of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them.
>
> -Ian
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's
> comment, I
> > am not sure that would be the way to go.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
> >> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
> >> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
> >>
> >> -I an
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review
> with
> >> > this and submitted a new batch to the review.
> >> >
> >> > How should this be handled?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
> >> >> best plan as I see it:
> >> >>
> >> >> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
> >> >> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
> >> >> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
> >> >> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
> >> >> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
> >> >> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
> >> >> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
> >> >> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
> >> >> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the
> incorrect
> >> >> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
> >> >> master, is likely the least painful option.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled
> c66d23a5
> >> >> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
> >> >> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once
> the
> >> >> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
> >> >> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
> >> >> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
> >> >> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
> >> >> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Ian
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Jochen,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I
> would
> >> >> > say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which
> was
> >> >> > preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
> >> >> > directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
> >> >> > Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The
> reason
> >> >> > for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from
> Gerrit,
> >> >> > and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it
> being
> >> >> > a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like
> working
> >> >> > with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
> >> >> > error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one
> can
> >> >> > submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the
> script
> >> >> > wasn't used, not sure which).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Ian
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> >> >> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi, Ian,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> the information that I read from your mail is that there are
> >> currently
> >> >> >> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
> >> >> >> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit
> master
> >> >> >> branch".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what
> can
> >> >> >> we do to fix that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jochen
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>> Hey all,
> >> >> >>> If you haven't pulled from
> >> >> >>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
> >> >> >>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please
> don't
> >> >> >>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for
> >> submitting
> >> >> >>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
> >> committed
> >> >> >>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly
> agree
> >> >> >>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at
> the
> >> >> >>> moment.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
> >> >> >>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc ,
> >> please
> >> >> >>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you
> have
> >> >> >>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to
> force-push
> >> >> >>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >> >>> -Ian
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> >> >> >> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
> >> Three)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Amoudi, Abdullah.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amoudi, Abdullah.
>
--
Amoudi, Abdullah.
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
Yeah, I guess we have no choice but to mangle Gerrit to incorporate
this commit somehow, unfortunately. There's no way to have the review
actually close on that commit. Hopefully it'll let me rebase it ontop
of that, but I'm afraid it'll say there's no difference between them.
-Ian
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:59 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's comment, I
> am not sure that would be the way to go.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
>> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
>> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
>>
>> -I an
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review with
>> > this and submitted a new batch to the review.
>> >
>> > How should this be handled?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
>> >> best plan as I see it:
>> >>
>> >> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
>> >> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
>> >> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
>> >> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
>> >> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
>> >> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
>> >> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
>> >> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
>> >> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the incorrect
>> >> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
>> >> master, is likely the least painful option.
>> >>
>> >> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled c66d23a5
>> >> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
>> >> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once the
>> >> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
>> >> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
>> >> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>> >>
>> >> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
>> >> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
>> >> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>> >>
>> >> - Ian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Jochen,
>> >> >
>> >> > We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I would
>> >> > say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which was
>> >> > preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
>> >> > directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
>> >> > Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The reason
>> >> > for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from Gerrit,
>> >> > and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it being
>> >> > a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like working
>> >> > with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
>> >> > error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one can
>> >> > submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the script
>> >> > wasn't used, not sure which).
>> >> >
>> >> > - Ian
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> >> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Hi, Ian,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the information that I read from your mail is that there are
>> currently
>> >> >> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>> >> >> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>> >> >> branch".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>> >> >> we do to fix that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jochen
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >> >>> Hey all,
>> >> >>> If you haven't pulled from
>> >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>> >> >>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>> >> >>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for
>> submitting
>> >> >>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
>> committed
>> >> >>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>> >> >>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>> >> >>> moment.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>> >> >>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc ,
>> please
>> >> >>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>> >> >>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>> >> >>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> -Ian
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>> >> >> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
>> Three)
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Amoudi, Abdullah.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Amoudi, Abdullah.
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>.
I am still trying to figure out how to do this but after David's comment, I
am not sure that would be the way to go.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
> cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
> Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
>
> -I an
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review with
> > this and submitted a new batch to the review.
> >
> > How should this be handled?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
> >> best plan as I see it:
> >>
> >> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
> >> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
> >> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
> >> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
> >> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
> >> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
> >> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
> >> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
> >> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the incorrect
> >> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
> >> master, is likely the least painful option.
> >>
> >> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled c66d23a5
> >> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
> >> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once the
> >> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
> >> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
> >> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
> >>
> >> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
> >> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
> >> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
> >>
> >> - Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >> > Hi Jochen,
> >> >
> >> > We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I would
> >> > say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which was
> >> > preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
> >> > directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
> >> > Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The reason
> >> > for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from Gerrit,
> >> > and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it being
> >> > a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like working
> >> > with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
> >> > error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one can
> >> > submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the script
> >> > wasn't used, not sure which).
> >> >
> >> > - Ian
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> >> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hi, Ian,
> >> >>
> >> >> the information that I read from your mail is that there are
> currently
> >> >> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
> >> >> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
> >> >> branch".
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
> >> >> we do to fix that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Jochen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >> >>> Hey all,
> >> >>> If you haven't pulled from
> >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
> >> >>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
> >> >>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for
> submitting
> >> >>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got
> committed
> >> >>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
> >> >>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
> >> >>> moment.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
> >> >>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc ,
> please
> >> >>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
> >> >>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
> >> >>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> -Ian
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> >> >> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two
> Three)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amoudi, Abdullah.
>
--
Amoudi, Abdullah.
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
In Gerrit itself, it's not an issue. I was just able to rebase it
cleanly (there's no substantive difference between the two changes).
Are you able to do similarly on your local branch?
-I an
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review with
> this and submitted a new batch to the review.
>
> How should this be handled?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
>> best plan as I see it:
>>
>> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
>> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
>> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
>> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
>> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
>> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
>> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
>> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
>> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the incorrect
>> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
>> master, is likely the least painful option.
>>
>> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled c66d23a5
>> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
>> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once the
>> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
>> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
>> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>>
>> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
>> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
>> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>>
>> - Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> > Hi Jochen,
>> >
>> > We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I would
>> > say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which was
>> > preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
>> > directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
>> > Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The reason
>> > for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from Gerrit,
>> > and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it being
>> > a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like working
>> > with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
>> > error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one can
>> > submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the script
>> > wasn't used, not sure which).
>> >
>> > - Ian
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi, Ian,
>> >>
>> >> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
>> >> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>> >> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>> >> branch".
>> >>
>> >> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>> >> we do to fix that?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Jochen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >>> Hey all,
>> >>> If you haven't pulled from
>> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>> >>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>> >>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>> >>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
>> >>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>> >>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>> >>> moment.
>> >>>
>> >>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>> >>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>> >>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>> >>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>> >>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> -Ian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>> >> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Amoudi, Abdullah.
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by abdullah alamoudi <ba...@gmail.com>.
Unfortunately, I have rebased one of my branches under code review with
this and submitted a new batch to the review.
How should this be handled?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
> best plan as I see it:
>
> The last commit we have in ASF master right now
> (c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
> keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
> and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
> version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
> issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
> rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
> cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
> database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the incorrect
> commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
> master, is likely the least painful option.
>
> The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled c66d23a5
> to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
> the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once the
> force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
> less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
> common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
>
> I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
> is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
> in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
>
> - Ian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > Hi Jochen,
> >
> > We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I would
> > say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which was
> > preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
> > directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
> > Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The reason
> > for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from Gerrit,
> > and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it being
> > a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like working
> > with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
> > error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one can
> > submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the script
> > wasn't used, not sure which).
> >
> > - Ian
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, Ian,
> >>
> >> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
> >> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
> >> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
> >> branch".
> >>
> >> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
> >> we do to fix that?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >>> Hey all,
> >>> If you haven't pulled from
> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
> >>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
> >>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
> >>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
> >>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
> >>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
> >>> moment.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
> >>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
> >>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
> >>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
> >>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> >> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
>
--
Amoudi, Abdullah.
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
After careful consideration, and some experimentation, this is the
best plan as I see it:
The last commit we have in ASF master right now
(c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc) is not one that we wish to
keep. It's basically the correct commit content-wise, but the message
and hence hash are wrong and needlessly conflict with Gerrit's proper
version (900bf1345410264e9b48469da93ccbd831920d2e). Resolving the
issue by rewinding or restoring Gerrit from backup would involve both
rewriting history on Gerrit's master branch by rewinding it and
cherry-picking commits onto it, and ugly surgery to Gerrit's internal
database. Therefore a force push to ASF git to overwrite the incorrect
commit, with the correct commit that currently resides in Gerrit's
master, is likely the least painful option.
The only complicating fact of course, is if anyone has pulled c66d23a5
to their master branch, or merged it into any feature branches. For
the former case, just performing a git reset --HARD to master once the
force-update is performed should suffice. For the latter case, some
less simple git-fu will probably be in order (checking out to last
common ancestor, then re-merging would likely be simplest).
I'm open to thoughts/suggestions/objections. Rewriting history in git
is not something to be taken lightly, so I want to be sure everyone's
in agreement and aware of what's going to happen.
- Ian
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Hi Jochen,
>
> We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I would
> say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which was
> preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
> directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
> Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The reason
> for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from Gerrit,
> and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it being
> a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like working
> with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
> error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one can
> submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the script
> wasn't used, not sure which).
>
> - Ian
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, Ian,
>>
>> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
>> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
>> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
>> branch".
>>
>> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
>> we do to fix that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> If you haven't pulled from
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
>>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>>> moment.
>>>
>>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
>> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu>.
Hi Jochen,
We use Gerrit as a code review platform. It works pretty well I would
say. The way we had it set up at one point pre-incubation (which was
preferable, and AFAIK impossible in ASF) was that nobody could
directly commit to the "reference" repository. It had to go through
Gerrit, and be reviewed and verified, and then submitted. The reason
for this mixup is that now folks have to take the commits from Gerrit,
and submit them to the ASF repo outside of Gerrit, instead of it being
a commit hook. As with anything git, this part is kind of like working
with a loaded gun. We have a script that makes this easier and less
error-prone, but there's a corner case apparently where where one can
submit things that aren't actually verified in Gerrit (or the script
wasn't used, not sure which).
- Ian
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Ian,
>
> the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
> two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
> repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
> branch".
>
> Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
> we do to fix that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jochen
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> If you haven't pulled from
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
>> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
>> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
>> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
>> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
>> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
>> moment.
>>
>> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
>> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
>> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
>> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
>> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Ian
>
>
>
> --
> Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
> and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
Re: [IMPORTANT] Git issues
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Ian,
the information that I read from your mail is that there are currently
two Git repositories in use: One being the "official apache
repository", the other being the repository with the "Gerrit master
branch".
Is that impression correct? If so, what are the reasons? And what can
we do to fix that?
Thanks,
Jochen
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Ian Maxon <im...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Hey all,
> If you haven't pulled from
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git
> (i.e. asterixdb's official apache repository) lately, please don't
> until you get an email giving the all-clear. Same goes for submitting
> and merging patches from Gerrit. Something inadvertently got committed
> to the head of the ASF master branch, which does not exactly agree
> with the head of Gerrit's master branch, so they are diverged at the
> moment.
>
> Additionally, if in your AsterixDB repository, 'git rev-parse
> asf/master' returns c66d23a5ac65ec5218ee47134aea423fd62a32cc , please
> reply to this so we know who might be affected. This means you have
> the latest from the ASF repository- which we may have to force-push
> and overwrite the latest commit from.
>
> Thanks,
> -Ian
--
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)