Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:37:05 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@freebsd.org> To: Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org>, Ryan Moeller <freqlabs@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, freebsd-git <freebsd-git@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenZFS branch tracking policy Message-ID: <YHWskVAE3iL8DyYX@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <da88bd06-7e79-3d2c-38ee-84424a3cef1d@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAPyFy2DS=nsE3-JQdqQC797xQhAiBACkuyA%2BcxkcRY0yeB_6=w@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfoPm0tfDpBTU8ORy-_Oa-tkiNX0_MeAdJn0T5ZJdQe6MQ@mail.gmail.com> <41924e9d-9d61-6646-6c8f-e4458f94296e@FreeBSD.org> <30f529c1-6087-e704-8cc7-0c48a40b7430@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfp3EJ%2BbrNM02Sfzu_Y42VDEADiApFaX0V9bu_jb5NWd4w@mail.gmail.com> <f8d7a7f3-63a2-434f-054c-fadb9131cf82@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfoPzNFSp2sW94Ken=u7DstHL_BWFmjV5MBD4cRBo3t_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9679ec9d-4916-92b7-ff70-0050d699875c@FreeBSD.org> <YHQMru4/ay8lINSk@acme.spoerlein.net> <da88bd06-7e79-3d2c-38ee-84424a3cef1d@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmm, I don't have an opinion on that one really. Cherry-pick of course only works on a single commit and will not record an additional parent, while a merge commit will have (at least) 2 parents. Some vendor branches sometimes have several commits in between a merge into head, so `git merge` is the natural extension of that. So only some folks can use cherry-pick and, as I said, I'm not sure what the recording of 2 parents gives us ... People with more vendor experience should chime in ... Cheers Uli On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 13:08:59 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: >If we keep the "old way" than I have an additional question: > >Wouldn't a "git cherry-pick -Xsubtree=sys/contrib/openzfs" from the >vendor branch be a better way to go than "git merge >-Xsubtree=sys/contrib/openzfs"? Especially for stable/13, where I have >to "merge" in the whole new vendor/openzfs/zfs-2.1-release branch. > >mm > >On 12. 4. 2021 11:02, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: >> On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 01:03:30 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: >>> Thank you for your comments, Warner. >>> >>> What I would like to know is the timing - how much time do we need to >>> resolve the issues. I can pull in the OpenZFS code up to commit >>> 3522f57b6 the "old" way. This is the last commit common to master and >>> zfs-2.1-release and can be cherry-picked to stable/13 the "old" way. >>> This will keep our code on par with openzfs-2.1-rc1 (rc2 is out now) and >>> I can add a 2-week MFC for stable/13 as usual but there are no >>> significant changes at all. After that we need to split main and >>> stable/13 and ideally move to direct tracking of OpenZFS. >>> >>> I have added some comments below. >> >> I think we should continue with the old way of squashing vendor >> changes in, for the main reason of bloat and slowdown for our users. >> Note that unlike SVN, a regular user who builds world will clone all >> of the git repo including all history. We have many more users than we >> have developers working on contrib software, so the slight convenience >> of a few FreeBSD devs comes at the cost of the majority of our users. :( >> >> I understand the confusion of a broken `git blame` and I'm wondering >> if it wouldn't be enough for the folks that want this to fetch the >> full OpenZFS repo into their FreeBSD repo. Then when the need arises >> to `git blame foo/bar.c` they see an "unhelpful" commit that says >> "upstream 01234abcdef was merged" upon which you can run `git blame >> 01234abcdef -- foo/bar.c` (paths will be different but it all can be >> hidden behind some script and git alias). >> >> Would that ease enough of the developers pain? >> >> I wish more stuff would move into ports (llvm, lldb) for reasons of >> size also. >> >> Cheers >> Uli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YHWskVAE3iL8DyYX>