Commit History Edit Alert

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Commit History Edit Alert

larry mccay-2
All -

My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the wrong
JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.

Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches: trunk,
branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current history but
you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align properly.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

thanks,

--larry
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Andrew Wang
What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
branches, and actually thought this was disabled.

Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
periods, e.g.:

HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
Credential Providers.


On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All -
>
> My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the wrong
> JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
>
> Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches: trunk,
> branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current history but
> you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align properly.
>
> I apologize for the inconvenience.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

larry mccay-2
I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
branch-2.8.
Not sure about trunk and branch-2.

Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
I will comply in the future.

For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?

Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
> branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
>
> Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
> periods, e.g.:
>
> HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
> Credential Providers.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > All -
> >
> > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the
> wrong
> > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
> >
> > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches:
> trunk,
> > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current history
> but
> > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
> properly.
> >
> > I apologize for the inconvenience.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > --larry
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Andrew Wang
Squashing means force pushing, so please don't do that per ASF policies.
The normal recommendation is just not to fix it, commit message typos
aren't that a big deal. What I do is leave a comment on the JIRA to make it
easier for people to track down the commit.

I found INFRA-11136 where we supposedly protected trunk and also
INFRA-11236 about getting this in place for the branch-Xs. Larry, could you
update INFRA-11236 with your empirical testing? Would be good to get these
branches protected again for the future.

Thanks,
Andrew


On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
> branch-2.8.
> Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
>
> Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
> I will comply in the future.
>
> For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?
>
> Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
> > branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
> >
> > Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
> > periods, e.g.:
> >
> > HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
> > Credential Providers.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > All -
> > >
> > > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the
> > wrong
> > > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
> > >
> > > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches:
> > trunk,
> > > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current history
> > but
> > > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
> > properly.
> > >
> > > I apologize for the inconvenience.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > --larry
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

larry mccay-2
Thanks for the clarification, Andrew.
Yes, I'll add a comment about the results of my "testing". :)


On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Squashing means force pushing, so please don't do that per ASF policies.
> The normal recommendation is just not to fix it, commit message typos
> aren't that a big deal. What I do is leave a comment on the JIRA to make it
> easier for people to track down the commit.
>
> I found INFRA-11136 where we supposedly protected trunk and also
> INFRA-11236 about getting this in place for the branch-Xs. Larry, could you
> update INFRA-11236 with your empirical testing? Would be good to get these
> branches protected again for the future.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
> > branch-2.8.
> > Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
> > I will comply in the future.
> >
> > For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?
> >
> > Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
> > > branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
> > >
> > > Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
> > > periods, e.g.:
> > >
> > > HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
> > > Credential Providers.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All -
> > > >
> > > > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the
> > > wrong
> > > > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
> > > >
> > > > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches:
> > > trunk,
> > > > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current
> history
> > > but
> > > > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
> > > properly.
> > > >
> > > > I apologize for the inconvenience.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --larry
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Karthik Kambatla-2
In reply to this post by larry mccay-2
Recent changes to branch policies have affected this. Our trunk seems
protected, but not branch-* branches. I had filed INFRA-11236 to address
this. I can't ping on the JIRA anymore because comments from
non-contributors are disabled.

To prevent unintentional major messes, it is highly recommended we don't
force push. For JIRA ID mistakes in commit messages, we have been filing
another (possibly empty) commit that just says there was a mistake. e.g.
something along the lines of "Mistakenly committed HADOOP-13011 as
HADOOP-13001."

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
> branch-2.8.
> Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
>
> Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
> I will comply in the future.
>
> For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?
>
> Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
> > branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
> >
> > Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
> > periods, e.g.:
> >
> > HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
> > Credential Providers.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > All -
> > >
> > > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the
> > wrong
> > > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
> > >
> > > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches:
> > trunk,
> > > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current history
> > but
> > > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
> > properly.
> > >
> > > I apologize for the inconvenience.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > --larry
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Owen O'Malley
In my opinion, prohibiting forced updates causes more pain than it helps.

The much more important part is that someone should make tags for the
recent releases in the "rel/*" namespace so that they can't be modified.
I'd suggest at least:

release-2.6.4
release-2.7.2

.. Owen

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Karthik Kambatla <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Recent changes to branch policies have affected this. Our trunk seems
> protected, but not branch-* branches. I had filed INFRA-11236 to address
> this. I can't ping on the JIRA anymore because comments from
> non-contributors are disabled.
>
> To prevent unintentional major messes, it is highly recommended we don't
> force push. For JIRA ID mistakes in commit messages, we have been filing
> another (possibly empty) commit that just says there was a mistake. e.g.
> something along the lines of "Mistakenly committed HADOOP-13011 as
> HADOOP-13001."
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
> > branch-2.8.
> > Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
> > I will comply in the future.
> >
> > For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?
> >
> > Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
> > > branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
> > >
> > > Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
> > > periods, e.g.:
> > >
> > > HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
> > > Credential Providers.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All -
> > > >
> > > > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the
> > > wrong
> > > > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
> > > >
> > > > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches:
> > > trunk,
> > > > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current
> history
> > > but
> > > > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
> > > properly.
> > > >
> > > > I apologize for the inconvenience.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --larry
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Karthik Kambatla-2
Owen, I agree force-pushes likely make for cleaner history, but they also
allow losing commits in case of race conditions. Since the previous
decision of disabling force pushes was discussed in a DISCUSS thread and
others might want to weigh in with their opinions, mind starting a DISCUSS
thread for changing this policy so others are in the know?

Agree tagging releases is good practice. I believe we do this already and
sign, but not sure if we place them under "rel/*" namespace.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Owen O'Malley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my opinion, prohibiting forced updates causes more pain than it helps.
>
> The much more important part is that someone should make tags for the
> recent releases in the "rel/*" namespace so that they can't be modified.
> I'd suggest at least:
>
> release-2.6.4
> release-2.7.2
>
> .. Owen
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Karthik Kambatla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Recent changes to branch policies have affected this. Our trunk seems
> > protected, but not branch-* branches. I had filed INFRA-11236 to address
> > this. I can't ping on the JIRA anymore because comments from
> > non-contributors are disabled.
> >
> > To prevent unintentional major messes, it is highly recommended we don't
> > force push. For JIRA ID mistakes in commit messages, we have been filing
> > another (possibly empty) commit that just says there was a mistake. e.g.
> > something along the lines of "Mistakenly committed HADOOP-13011 as
> > HADOOP-13001."
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
> > > branch-2.8.
> > > Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
> > > I will comply in the future.
> > >
> > > For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?
> > >
> > > Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
> > > > branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
> > > > periods, e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for
> Keystore-based
> > > > Credential Providers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All -
> > > > >
> > > > > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced
> the
> > > > wrong
> > > > > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
> > > > >
> > > > > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3
> branches:
> > > > trunk,
> > > > > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current
> > history
> > > > but
> > > > > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
> > > > properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I apologize for the inconvenience.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > --larry
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Karthik Kambatla-2
FWIW, the Hadoop team at Cloudera, in the past, allowed force pushes for
our internal repo. It was common practice to email rest of the team when
force-pushing to make sure we don't lose commits. It was quite painful, and
we decided to disallow force pushes and life has gotten much better.

PS: We also use gerrit, so that serializes our commits for us.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Karthik Kambatla <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Owen, I agree force-pushes likely make for cleaner history, but they also
> allow losing commits in case of race conditions. Since the previous
> decision of disabling force pushes was discussed in a DISCUSS thread and
> others might want to weigh in with their opinions, mind starting a DISCUSS
> thread for changing this policy so others are in the know?
>
> Agree tagging releases is good practice. I believe we do this already and
> sign, but not sure if we place them under "rel/*" namespace.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Owen O'Malley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, prohibiting forced updates causes more pain than it helps.
>>
>> The much more important part is that someone should make tags for the
>> recent releases in the "rel/*" namespace so that they can't be modified.
>> I'd suggest at least:
>>
>> release-2.6.4
>> release-2.7.2
>>
>> .. Owen
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Karthik Kambatla <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Recent changes to branch policies have affected this. Our trunk seems
>> > protected, but not branch-* branches. I had filed INFRA-11236 to address
>> > this. I can't ping on the JIRA anymore because comments from
>> > non-contributors are disabled.
>> >
>> > To prevent unintentional major messes, it is highly recommended we don't
>> > force push. For JIRA ID mistakes in commit messages, we have been filing
>> > another (possibly empty) commit that just says there was a mistake. e.g.
>> > something along the lines of "Mistakenly committed HADOOP-13011 as
>> > HADOOP-13001."
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit
>> on
>> > > branch-2.8.
>> > > Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
>> > > I will comply in the future.
>> > >
>> > > For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix"
>> it?
>> > >
>> > > Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to
>> non-feature
>> > > > branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
>> > > > periods, e.g.:
>> > > >
>> > > > HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for
>> Keystore-based
>> > > > Credential Providers.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > All -
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced
>> the
>> > > > wrong
>> > > > > JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3
>> branches:
>> > > > trunk,
>> > > > > branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current
>> > history
>> > > > but
>> > > > > you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
>> > > > properly.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I apologize for the inconvenience.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > thanks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --larry
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commit History Edit Alert

Steve Loughran-3
In reply to this post by Owen O'Malley

Force pushes break everyone who has been pulling them down, and has the potential to stamp on other people's changes that they got in between the original push and the commit. That's more common in PST than for us in the EU, who can work across all three branches without race conditions surfacing. Generally.

It may be something retainable for emergencies (someone just commits a 200MB GPL JAR etc), but for minor things, no.


 If you want to change a commit text, it could always be rolled back (new commit) and then reapplied with a different message.


> On 22 Apr 2016, at 20:07, Owen O'Malley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In my opinion, prohibiting forced updates causes more pain than it helps.
>
> The much more important part is that someone should make tags for the
> recent releases in the "rel/*" namespace so that they can't be modified.
> I'd suggest at least:
>
> release-2.6.4
> release-2.7.2
>
> .. Owen
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Karthik Kambatla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Recent changes to branch policies have affected this. Our trunk seems
>> protected, but not branch-* branches. I had filed INFRA-11236 to address
>> this. I can't ping on the JIRA anymore because comments from
>> non-contributors are disabled.
>>
>> To prevent unintentional major messes, it is highly recommended we don't
>> force push. For JIRA ID mistakes in commit messages, we have been filing
>> another (possibly empty) commit that just says there was a mistake. e.g.
>> something along the lines of "Mistakenly committed HADOOP-13011 as
>> HADOOP-13001."
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that he squashed my attempted --amend into a single commit on
>>> branch-2.8.
>>> Not sure about trunk and branch-2.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification on the formatting.
>>> I will comply in the future.
>>>
>>> For such issues, is a dev@ email first better than trying to "fix" it?
>>>
>>> Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Andrew Wang <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What does "fix" mean? We aren't supposed to force push to non-feature
>>>> branches, and actually thought this was disabled.
>>>>
>>>> Also FYI for the future, we normally format our commit messages with
>>>> periods, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> HADOOP-13011. Clearly Document the Password Details for Keystore-based
>>>> Credential Providers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:26 PM, larry mccay <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All -
>>>>>
>>>>> My first hadoop commit for HADOOP-13011 inadvertently referenced the
>>>> wrong
>>>>> JIRA (HADOOP-13001) in the commit message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen O'Malley helped me out by fixing the history on all 3 branches:
>>>> trunk,
>>>>> branch-2, branch-2.8. The message is correct now in the current
>> history
>>>> but
>>>>> you may need to rebase to the current history for things to align
>>>> properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize for the inconvenience.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --larry
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>