Menu
▾
▴
postgres-xc-developers
|
From: Pavan D. <pav...@gm...> - 2013-04-04 09:25:27
|
Hello, While I am sure you must be doing a right thing, but since it struck to me, I thought I should raise it here. I saw a commit message which has a message body "Merge branch 'REL_9_2_3' into master". Its kind of a red flag to me. I hope we are *not* merging any point releases of PostgreSQL in the master branch of Postgres-XC. In the past, I have spent considerable time in fixing similar mistakes and we should not be repeating that. To explain this point further, we should always be merging only master branch of PostgreSQL. Later, if we make a Postgres-XC release based on a stable release of PostgreSQL, say 9.2, we should branch of Postgres-XC repository at the same commit point as PostgreSQL did and do a release. Any bug fixes on that stable release will then go into only that branch while the main development would continue on the master branch. If we mistakenly merge a PostgreSQL's point release such as 9.2.3, then we will have commits in Postgres-XC master branch which will later conflict terribly with the master branch commits of PostgreSQL, since the same bug may have been fixed in PostgreSQL's master branch too. Sorry, if this is all noise and you are doing the right thing. But then the commit message should look different. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee |
|
From: Ahsan H. <ahs...@en...> - 2013-04-04 09:50:16
|
Hi Pavan, Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, the next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based on PG 9.2, when we create the branch for 1.1 we will continue to do further development for the next release and merges in the master branch. Any future PG 9.2 point releases will be committed in the 1.1 branch going forward. The next major release after 1.1 will be based on PG 9.3. Thanks, Ahsan On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm...>wrote: > Hello, > > While I am sure you must be doing a right thing, but since it struck to > me, I thought I should raise it here. I saw a commit message which has a > message body "Merge branch 'REL_9_2_3' into master". Its kind of a red flag > to me. I hope we are *not* merging any point releases of PostgreSQL in the > master branch of Postgres-XC. In the past, I have spent considerable time > in fixing similar mistakes and we should not be repeating that. > > To explain this point further, we should always be merging only master > branch of PostgreSQL. Later, if we make a Postgres-XC release based on a > stable release of PostgreSQL, say 9.2, we should branch of Postgres-XC > repository at the same commit point as PostgreSQL did and do a release. Any > bug fixes on that stable release will then go into only that branch while > the main development would continue on the master branch. If we mistakenly > merge a PostgreSQL's point release such as 9.2.3, then we will have commits > in Postgres-XC master branch which will later conflict terribly with the > master branch commits of PostgreSQL, since the same bug may have been fixed > in PostgreSQL's master branch too. > > Sorry, if this is all noise and you are doing the right thing. But then > the commit message should look different. > > Thanks, > Pavan > > -- > Pavan Deolasee > http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. > Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire > the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the > Employer Resources Portal > http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html > _______________________________________________ > Postgres-xc-developers mailing list > Pos...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers > > -- Ahsan Hadi Snr Director Product Development EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise Postgres Company Phone: +92-51-8358874 Mobile: +92-333-5162114 Website: www.enterprisedb.com EnterpriseDB Blog: http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/ Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/enterprisedb This e-mail message (and any attachment) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message contains information from EnterpriseDB Corporation that may be privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive this for the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, retention, archiving, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. |
|
From: Ashutosh B. <ash...@en...> - 2013-04-04 10:01:55
|
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi <ahs...@en...>wrote: > Hi Pavan, > > Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, the > next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based on > PG 9.2, > and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the point from where REL_9_2 is cut. If I understand correctly, what we have done right now, is we have pulled the code from a stable branch (thus pulling changes of 9.2.3, which are not in master branch and may not part of 9.3 release) > when we create the branch for 1.1 we will continue to do further > development for the next release and merges in the master branch. > from PostgreSQL master branch and not any REL_ or stable branches. > Any future PG 9.2 point releases will be committed in the 1.1 branch > going forward. The next major release after 1.1 will be based on PG 9.3. > > Is my annotation right, Pavan? > Thanks, > Ahsan > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm...>wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> While I am sure you must be doing a right thing, but since it struck to >> me, I thought I should raise it here. I saw a commit message which has a >> message body "Merge branch 'REL_9_2_3' into master". Its kind of a red flag >> to me. I hope we are *not* merging any point releases of PostgreSQL in the >> master branch of Postgres-XC. In the past, I have spent considerable time >> in fixing similar mistakes and we should not be repeating that. >> >> To explain this point further, we should always be merging only master >> branch of PostgreSQL. Later, if we make a Postgres-XC release based on a >> stable release of PostgreSQL, say 9.2, we should branch of Postgres-XC >> repository at the same commit point as PostgreSQL did and do a release. Any >> bug fixes on that stable release will then go into only that branch while >> the main development would continue on the master branch. If we mistakenly >> merge a PostgreSQL's point release such as 9.2.3, then we will have commits >> in Postgres-XC master branch which will later conflict terribly with the >> master branch commits of PostgreSQL, since the same bug may have been fixed >> in PostgreSQL's master branch too. >> >> Sorry, if this is all noise and you are doing the right thing. But then >> the commit message should look different. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavan >> >> -- >> Pavan Deolasee >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. >> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire >> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the >> Employer Resources Portal >> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html >> _______________________________________________ >> Postgres-xc-developers mailing list >> Pos...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers >> >> > > > -- > Ahsan Hadi > Snr Director Product Development > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Enterprise Postgres Company > > Phone: +92-51-8358874 > Mobile: +92-333-5162114 > > Website: www.enterprisedb.com > EnterpriseDB Blog: http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/ > Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/enterprisedb > > This e-mail message (and any attachment) is intended for the use of the > individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message contains > information from EnterpriseDB Corporation that may be privileged, > confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are > not the intended recipient or authorized to receive this for the intended > recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, retention, archiving, or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail > and delete this message. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. > Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire > the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the > Employer Resources Portal > http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html > _______________________________________________ > Postgres-xc-developers mailing list > Pos...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers > > -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EntepriseDB Corporation The Enterprise Postgres Company |
|
From: Pavan D. <pav...@gm...> - 2013-04-04 10:23:28
|
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ash...@en...> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi <ahs...@en...>wrote: > >> Hi Pavan, >> >> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, the >> next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based on >> PG 9.2, >> > > and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the point > from where REL_9_2 is cut. > If I understand correctly, what we have done right now, is we have pulled > the code from a stable branch (thus pulling changes of 9.2.3, which are not > in master branch and may not part of 9.3 release) > > >> when we create the branch for 1.1 we will continue to do further >> development for the next release and merges in the master branch. >> > > from PostgreSQL master branch and not any REL_ or stable branches. > > >> Any future PG 9.2 point releases will be committed in the 1.1 branch >> going forward. The next major release after 1.1 will be based on PG 9.3. >> >> > Is my annotation right, Pavan? > > Right. And I think we have already made a mistake by merging all of 9.2.3. We should revert that back, but I don't know if there is an easy way to do so :-( Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee |
|
From: Michael P. <mic...@gm...> - 2013-04-04 13:45:11
|
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm...>wrote: > > > Right. And I think we have already made a mistake by merging all of 9.2.3. > We should revert that back, but I don't know if there is an easy way to do > so :-( > There is, delete the master branch and recreate it cleanly down to the point just before the merge. -- Michael |
|
From: Michael P. <mic...@gm...> - 2013-04-04 13:44:02
|
OK guys you just put the XC master out-of-sync with PG master: http://postgres-xc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=postgres-xc/postgres-xc;a=commit;h=52a8aea4290851e5d40c3bb4e3237ad8aeceaf68 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ash...@en...> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi <ahs...@en...>wrote: > >> Hi Pavan, >> >> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, the >> next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based on >> PG 9.2, >> > > and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the point > from where REL_9_2 is cut. > Correcting you here, you will have to merge master branch up to a commit which is the intersection of master and REL9_3_STABLE, the intersection commit determined by: git merge-base master REL9_3_STABLE. If I understand correctly, what we have done right now, is we have pulled > the code from a stable branch (thus pulling changes of 9.2.3, which are not > in master branch and may not part of 9.3 release) > Merging code of 9.2 stable branch of PG to XC master branch will be a huge mistake: this would make XC master out-of-sync with PG master. > > >> when we create the branch for 1.1 we will continue to do further >> development for the next release and merges in the master branch. >> > > from PostgreSQL master branch and not any REL_ or stable branches. > I suppose that XC 1.1 will be based on PG 9.2, no? In this case, *FIRST* create the stable branch 1.1 when you stop development on XC master branch (normally a beta2): git branch REL1_1_STABLE master *Then* merge the commits of PG 9.2 stable branch to REL1_1_STABLE. Doing this operation reversely, as I think it has is simply crazy, and you blocked all opportunity to update the code with future PG releases. Resolving it is possible of course, simply delete the existing master branch and recreate it down to the commit before the merge. Can you guys do it without breaking the repository more??? Or not? -- Michael |
|
From: Pavan D. <pav...@gm...> - 2013-04-05 05:27:25
|
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Paquier <mic...@gm...>wrote: > OK guys you just put the XC master out-of-sync with PG master: > > http://postgres-xc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=postgres-xc/postgres-xc;a=commit;h=52a8aea4290851e5d40c3bb4e3237ad8aeceaf68 > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < > ash...@en...> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi <ahs...@en...>wrote: >> >>> Hi Pavan, >>> >>> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, the >>> next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based on >>> PG 9.2, >>> >> >> and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the point >> from where REL_9_2 is cut. >> > Correcting you here, you will have to merge master branch up to a commit > which is the intersection of master and REL9_3_STABLE, the intersection > commit determined by: > git merge-base master REL9_3_STABLE. > I am sure you mean REL9_2_STABLE because thats the branch we are interested in. > . > > Resolving it is possible of course, simply delete the existing master > branch and recreate it down to the commit before the merge. > That's not a clean way and I am not sure how it would impact the users who are already tracking the current master branch. Somebody need to study and experiment carefully before doing more damage. One way I have seen by reading docs is to use "git revert -m 1 <merge commit id>". This indeed would revert the merge commit, but unfortunately will keep the history around. Also, this would cause problems when next time we try to merge the REL9_2_STABLE branch to the corresponding XC stable branch. > Can you guys do it without breaking the repository more??? Or not? > > Calm down :-) We all make mistakes. But I agree. We have to extremely careful with what we do the repository given that many people are now following us. Thanks, Pavan |
|
From: Michael P. <mic...@gm...> - 2013-04-05 06:05:38
|
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm...>wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Paquier <mic...@gm... > > wrote: > >> OK guys you just put the XC master out-of-sync with PG master: >> >> http://postgres-xc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=postgres-xc/postgres-xc;a=commit;h=52a8aea4290851e5d40c3bb4e3237ad8aeceaf68 >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < >> ash...@en...> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi <ahs...@en...>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Pavan, >>>> >>>> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, >>>> the next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based >>>> on PG 9.2, >>>> >>> >>> and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the point >>> from where REL_9_2 is cut. >>> >> Correcting you here, you will have to merge master branch up to a commit >> which is the intersection of master and REL9_3_STABLE, the intersection >> commit determined by: >> git merge-base master REL9_3_STABLE. >> > > I am sure you mean REL9_2_STABLE because thats the branch we are > interested in. > Oh OK I missed the point. What is aimed here is the stable branch for 1.1. In this case yes, it is REL9_2_STABLE. I thought about merging XC-master with future PG-9.3 stable. > > >> . >> >> Resolving it is possible of course, simply delete the existing master >> branch and recreate it down to the commit before the merge. >> > > That's not a clean way and I am not sure how it would impact the users who > are already tracking the current master branch. Somebody need to study and > experiment carefully before doing more damage. One way I have seen by > reading docs is to use "git revert -m 1 <merge commit id>". This indeed > would revert the merge commit, but unfortunately will keep the history > around. Also, this would cause problems when next time we try to merge the > REL9_2_STABLE branch to the corresponding XC stable branch. > I still vote for cleaning up history and rebasing the master branch. I recall that you did it once in the past when master was synced with PG-8.4 stable. -- Michael |
|
From: Koichi S. <koi...@gm...> - 2013-04-08 07:36:25
|
Thanks Michael for a good advice. Now I recovered our master branch to the status "before" 9.2.3 merge. The merge work itself is now in 923merge branch, which will be used to merge with 9.2.3, as well as 9.2.4, after REL1_1_STABLE is created. Github was recovered as well (in fact, it was so noce that 9.2.3 merge has not been pushed to github yet). If any local branch pulled 9.2.3 merge work, please reset them with git reset --hard to make your local master branch consistent. I will write how to recover them to our Wiki site. Warmest Regards; ---------- Koichi Suzuki 2013/4/5 Michael Paquier <mic...@gm...> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm...>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Paquier < >> mic...@gm...> wrote: >> >>> OK guys you just put the XC master out-of-sync with PG master: >>> >>> http://postgres-xc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=postgres-xc/postgres-xc;a=commit;h=52a8aea4290851e5d40c3bb4e3237ad8aeceaf68 >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < >>> ash...@en...> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi <ahs...@en... >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Pavan, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, >>>>> the next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based >>>>> on PG 9.2, >>>>> >>>> >>>> and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the >>>> point from where REL_9_2 is cut. >>>> >>> Correcting you here, you will have to merge master branch up to a commit >>> which is the intersection of master and REL9_3_STABLE, the intersection >>> commit determined by: >>> git merge-base master REL9_3_STABLE. >>> >> >> I am sure you mean REL9_2_STABLE because thats the branch we are >> interested in. >> > Oh OK I missed the point. What is aimed here is the stable branch for 1.1. > In this case yes, it is REL9_2_STABLE. > I thought about merging XC-master with future PG-9.3 stable. > > >> >> >>> . >>> >>> Resolving it is possible of course, simply delete the existing master >>> branch and recreate it down to the commit before the merge. >>> >> >> That's not a clean way and I am not sure how it would impact the users >> who are already tracking the current master branch. Somebody need to study >> and experiment carefully before doing more damage. One way I have seen by >> reading docs is to use "git revert -m 1 <merge commit id>". This indeed >> would revert the merge commit, but unfortunately will keep the history >> around. Also, this would cause problems when next time we try to merge the >> REL9_2_STABLE branch to the corresponding XC stable branch. >> > I still vote for cleaning up history and rebasing the master branch. I > recall that you did it once in the past when master was synced with PG-8.4 > stable. > -- > Michael > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. > Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire > the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the > Employer Resources Portal > http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html > _______________________________________________ > Postgres-xc-developers mailing list > Pos...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers > > |
|
From: Ashutosh B. <ash...@en...> - 2013-04-09 04:08:24
|
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...>wrote: > Thanks Michael for a good advice. Now I recovered our master branch to > the status "before" 9.2.3 merge. The merge work itself is now in 923merge > branch, which will be used to merge with 9.2.3, as well as 9.2.4, after > REL1_1_STABLE is created. > > I think we should discard this branch (unfortunately). Otherwise we may loose the commits we do to the master while cutting 1.1. > Github was recovered as well (in fact, it was so noce that 9.2.3 merge has > not been pushed to github yet). > > If any local branch pulled 9.2.3 merge work, please reset them with git > reset --hard to make your local master branch consistent. > > I will write how to recover them to our Wiki site. > > Warmest Regards; > ---------- > Koichi Suzuki > > > 2013/4/5 Michael Paquier <mic...@gm...> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm...>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Paquier < >>> mic...@gm...> wrote: >>> >>>> OK guys you just put the XC master out-of-sync with PG master: >>>> >>>> http://postgres-xc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=postgres-xc/postgres-xc;a=commit;h=52a8aea4290851e5d40c3bb4e3237ad8aeceaf68 >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < >>>> ash...@en...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi < >>>>> ahs...@en...> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Pavan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, >>>>>> the next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based >>>>>> on PG 9.2, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the >>>>> point from where REL_9_2 is cut. >>>>> >>>> Correcting you here, you will have to merge master branch up to a >>>> commit which is the intersection of master and REL9_3_STABLE, the >>>> intersection commit determined by: >>>> git merge-base master REL9_3_STABLE. >>>> >>> >>> I am sure you mean REL9_2_STABLE because thats the branch we are >>> interested in. >>> >> Oh OK I missed the point. What is aimed here is the stable branch for >> 1.1. In this case yes, it is REL9_2_STABLE. >> I thought about merging XC-master with future PG-9.3 stable. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Resolving it is possible of course, simply delete the existing master >>>> branch and recreate it down to the commit before the merge. >>>> >>> >>> That's not a clean way and I am not sure how it would impact the users >>> who are already tracking the current master branch. Somebody need to study >>> and experiment carefully before doing more damage. One way I have seen by >>> reading docs is to use "git revert -m 1 <merge commit id>". This indeed >>> would revert the merge commit, but unfortunately will keep the history >>> around. Also, this would cause problems when next time we try to merge the >>> REL9_2_STABLE branch to the corresponding XC stable branch. >>> >> I still vote for cleaning up history and rebasing the master branch. I >> recall that you did it once in the past when master was synced with PG-8.4 >> stable. >> -- >> Michael >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. >> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire >> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the >> Employer Resources Portal >> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html >> _______________________________________________ >> Postgres-xc-developers mailing list >> Pos...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. > Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire > the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the > Employer Resources Portal > http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html > _______________________________________________ > Postgres-xc-core mailing list > Pos...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-core > > -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EntepriseDB Corporation The Enterprise Postgres Company |
|
From: Koichi S. <koi...@gm...> - 2013-04-09 05:14:55
|
Yes, I think so. Only reason I'm keeping this is to use this result in real merge work for 1.1 release. No commit form this branch will be directly moved to our 1.1 branch. This branch contains many valuable work done by core member very useful in the future work. Regards; ---------- Koichi Suzuki 2013/4/9 Ashutosh Bapat <ash...@en...> > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...>wrote: > >> Thanks Michael for a good advice. Now I recovered our master branch to >> the status "before" 9.2.3 merge. The merge work itself is now in 923merge >> branch, which will be used to merge with 9.2.3, as well as 9.2.4, after >> REL1_1_STABLE is created. >> >> > I think we should discard this branch (unfortunately). Otherwise we may > loose the commits we do to the master while cutting 1.1. > > >> Github was recovered as well (in fact, it was so noce that 9.2.3 merge >> has not been pushed to github yet). >> >> If any local branch pulled 9.2.3 merge work, please reset them with git >> reset --hard to make your local master branch consistent. >> >> I will write how to recover them to our Wiki site. >> >> Warmest Regards; >> ---------- >> Koichi Suzuki >> >> >> 2013/4/5 Michael Paquier <mic...@gm...> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pav...@gm... >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Michael Paquier < >>>> mic...@gm...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK guys you just put the XC master out-of-sync with PG master: >>>>> >>>>> http://postgres-xc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=postgres-xc/postgres-xc;a=commit;h=52a8aea4290851e5d40c3bb4e3237ad8aeceaf68 >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < >>>>> ash...@en...> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ahsan Hadi < >>>>>> ahs...@en...> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Pavan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure i understand the problem, >>>>>>> the next release of postgres-xc will be 1.1. The 1.1 release will be based >>>>>>> on PG 9.2, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and that we should merge from master branch of PostgreSQL upto the >>>>>> point from where REL_9_2 is cut. >>>>>> >>>>> Correcting you here, you will have to merge master branch up to a >>>>> commit which is the intersection of master and REL9_3_STABLE, the >>>>> intersection commit determined by: >>>>> git merge-base master REL9_3_STABLE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am sure you mean REL9_2_STABLE because thats the branch we are >>>> interested in. >>>> >>> Oh OK I missed the point. What is aimed here is the stable branch for >>> 1.1. In this case yes, it is REL9_2_STABLE. >>> I thought about merging XC-master with future PG-9.3 stable. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> Resolving it is possible of course, simply delete the existing master >>>>> branch and recreate it down to the commit before the merge. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's not a clean way and I am not sure how it would impact the users >>>> who are already tracking the current master branch. Somebody need to study >>>> and experiment carefully before doing more damage. One way I have seen by >>>> reading docs is to use "git revert -m 1 <merge commit id>". This indeed >>>> would revert the merge commit, but unfortunately will keep the history >>>> around. Also, this would cause problems when next time we try to merge the >>>> REL9_2_STABLE branch to the corresponding XC stable branch. >>>> >>> I still vote for cleaning up history and rebasing the master branch. I >>> recall that you did it once in the past when master was synced with PG-8.4 >>> stable. >>> -- >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. >>> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire >>> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the >>> Employer Resources Portal >>> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Postgres-xc-developers mailing list >>> Pos...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. >> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire >> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the >> Employer Resources Portal >> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html >> _______________________________________________ >> Postgres-xc-core mailing list >> Pos...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-core >> >> > > > -- > Best Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EntepriseDB Corporation > The Enterprise Postgres Company > |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X