[asterisk-dev] tags on the main branches [was: Re: Minor Release Branches]
Corey Farrell
git at cfware.com
Thu Dec 21 14:44:27 CST 2017
George asked that I post some scenarios where this would be useful.
1. You are about to create updated asterisk package and want to quickly
scan the changes to 13 since latest 13.x.0 release to see if anything is
a 'must patch' for your deployments. You can use 'tig' to review
changes for critical fixes until you reach the tag '13.x.0-rc1' (which
you can see in the list because the tag was merged). I know the end
result can be accomplished by other means, but not as easily.
2. You've created an automated test to try finding a performance
regression. The test runs asterisk under a profiler and stores
results. Each revision you test needs a new file to store results -
'git describe' would provide an excellent filename that is unique per
revision.
One thing I'm not sure about is if we should only merge rc1 tags or if
we should merge all new release tags. At first all release tags seem
reasonable, but the order of tags other than rc1 would be off. rc1 is
special because it would be merged back to mainline before anything
else. Even 13.x.0 does not get cut until after other commits are merged
to 13, so if we merged 13.19.0 to 13, the commits made since 13.19.0-rc1
would appear out of order (before 13.19.0). The difference between rc1
and final release is always small, but the number of new commits to
mainline between that time can be quite large.
On 12/21/2017 10:45 AM, Corey Farrell wrote:
> I just read `git help merge` again and I think the solution is 'git
> checkout 13 && git merge --strategy ours 13.19.0-rc1'. This would
> effectively tell git that '13' already contains 13.19.0-rc1, but
> without actually trying to pull any changes to 13. This merge would
> be the final step of mkrelease.py.
>
> No changes will be needed to our handling of '.lastclean', please
> ignore those comments as I was wrong.
>
> On 12/21/2017 08:19 AM, George Joseph wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Corey Farrell <git at cfware.com
>> <mailto:git at cfware.com>> wrote:
>>
>> One thing that might improve this is if releases were merged back
>> to the major branch. Currently the commit "Update for
>> 13.19.0-rc1" is on the 13.19 branch and tagged as 13.19.0-rc1. I
>> believe that if we added 'git checkout 13 && git merge
>> 13.19.0-rc1' we would get better information from 'git describe
>> 13' and tags would appear in 'git log 13 --oneline'. This would
>> continue working even after we delete the minor branches.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>>
>> As a test I just ran 'git merge 13.18.4' from the current 13
>> branch. The merge did have 2 conflicts but that's because 13.18
>> was branched so long ago and a couple files that were modified in
>> minor releases have since been modified again or deleted. Then I
>> ran 'git describe 13', it said '13.18.4-404-gd5d67bb1f4'. This
>> tells us that my local branch had about 404 commits (including
>> merges) that are not part of 13.18.0-rc1 (the point where 13.18
>> diverged from 13 because 13.18.3 was not merged back). Merging
>> each tag as soon as it's created would make the results more
>> accurate. and (almost always) eliminate merge conflicts.
>>
>> "almost always" will be an issue since it's the scripts that do the
>> work. It's kinda frustrating already when you're trying to get
>> releases out the door and something goes wrong with the script. What
>> conditions do you think might still cause merge conflicts?
>>
>> The only wrinkle in this plan is that the '.lastclean' file is
>> created on the releases but it's listed in .gitignore. I think
>> we might be able to just get rid of the .lastclean and
>> .cleancount files. This Makefile hack predates the use of SVN
>> and I don't think it's necessary. One thing it does do is try to
>> enable the astdb2sqlite3 utility, but Berkely DB was last used in
>> Asterisk 1.8. The default is for that utility to be enabled,
>> that's enough. In addition the mkrelease script actually copies
>> .cleancount to .lastclean, I think that means it's disabled for
>> releases.
>>
>> These kind of things we can alter to suite our needs so there
>> shouldn't be an issue.
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2017 12:58 PM, George Joseph wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
>>> <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com <mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:50:03AM -0700, George Joseph wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
>>> <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com <mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Off-topic:
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:50:03PM -0700, George Joseph
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Thankfully we tag EVERYTHING! :)
>>> > >
>>> > > asterisk(13)$ git describe
>>> > > 13.15.0-rc1-908-ge31e3b581b
>>> > >
>>> > > asterisk(14)$ git describe
>>> > > fatal: No tags can describe
>>> 'fb18797ae09a685ec71101499fb1c1c606b16397'.
>>> > > Try --always, or create some tags.
>>> > >
>>> > > asterisk(15)$ git describe
>>> > > fatal: No tags can describe
>>> 'd312068ee93ff8ce97b464f3c2ff3304e15cb3fe'.
>>> > > Try --always, or create some tags.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I wasted half an hour yesterday trying to find out why a
>>> build sis not
>>> > > switch from master to 13, only to realize that the name
>>> of the git
>>> > > branch in the version string is always "master".
>>> > >
>>> > > We tag everything. But only well after it was branched
>>> from the main
>>> > >
>>> > branch.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I'm not following you.
>>> >
>>> > We tag every release...
>>> >
>>> > $ git checkout 13.18.4
>>> > HEAD is now at f4644317b7... Update for 13.18.4
>>> > $ git describe
>>> > 13.18.4
>>>
>>>
>>> > $ git checkout 13.18
>>> > Switched to branch '13.18'
>>> > Your branch is up-to-date with 'gerrit/13.18'.
>>> > $ git describe
>>> > 13.18.4
>>>
>>>
>>> > $
>>> >
>>> > We have to create the minor release branch (13.18) and do
>>> the work there so
>>> > that patch releases (13.18.4) are based on the minor
>>> release branch, not
>>> > the major branch.
>>>
>>> Those branches are likewise short-lived branches (at least
>>> with respect
>>> to the number of commits). Real work is done on master, 13,
>>> 15 and such.
>>> But when I'm on such a branch, I can't ask git on which
>>> branch I am (not
>>> to mention: at which stage in it).
>>>
>>>
>>> I _think_ I understand now.
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance: maybe whenever you tag a new release branch
>>> (e.g. 13.18),
>>> tag the split point as something like "13.18.base" or
>>> "base.13.18"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's easy enough. Toss us an issue for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> But maybe it's just me and branches 13 and 15 are not widely
>>> used (for
>>> master it is irrelevant anyway).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tzafrir Cohen
>>> +972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
>>> <mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>
>>> http://www.xorcom.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
>>> http://www.api-digital.com --
>>>
>>> asterisk-dev mailing list
>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>>> <http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> George Joseph
>>> Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
>>> 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
>>> Check us out at: www.digium.com <http://www.digium.com/> &
>>> www.asterisk.org <http://www.asterisk.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>>
>> asterisk-dev mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>> <http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> George Joseph
>> Digium, Inc. | Software Developer
>> 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
>> Check us out at: www.digium.com <http://www.digium.com/> &
>> www.asterisk.org <http://www.asterisk.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20171221/b2fe2ee9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the asterisk-dev
mailing list