Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:27:25 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= <uqs@freebsd.org>, 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: <CANCZdfoDCACyW0d1wUf6SnYXytF=BbuEYNF=4WM552tdOQq5vA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2b404ead-d862-c4ba-41cd-4ceb1246ce6f@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> <YHWskVAE3iL8DyYX@acme.spoerlein.net> <CANCZdfrL=194g-yn95R_qEYsyGf4O=KYNdHvoNRqcRkK7xkSBA@mail.gmail.com> <2b404ead-d862-c4ba-41cd-4ceb1246ce6f@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:24 PM Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org> wrote: > Thank you guys for your input. > > OpenZFS 2.1 has already gone -RC3, eliminating even more diffs the code i= n > our tree. > > I have merged OpenZFS-2.1 RC1 the old way up to the last common commit. I > don't know who or what body is in charge to make a decision on this matte= r > but I would be very happy if a decision is made. I am personally slightly > in favor of merging directly from OpenZFS as it makes my work easier and > less prone to mistakes but I don't object doing it the "old" way. But eve= n > the "old" way is going to be different, as it would mean doing vendor > merges into stable/13 what we are not used to. On the other hand I do > "squashed" imports anyway so I could cherry-pick from the new vendor bran= ch > into stable/13 as well. > > One way or another, I would like to continue pushing recent OpenZFS code > to our tree. > Hi Martin, I think ultimately it is this group, and since I've been handling it, it's on me to make sure the problem gets to resolution soon. I have one open issue: if you were to bring in the current OpenZFS branch as a vendor branch, would our automation generate a lot of email. I think it would, and need to make sure it wouldn't, or we'd have some way to limit it before moving ahead. I hope to know by Tuesday one way or the other.... Warner > Martin > On 13. 4. 2021 18:39, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:37 AM Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein <uqs@freebsd.org> wr= ote: > >> 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. >> > > Correct. > > >> 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 ... >> > > So for normal, low velocity updates, there's little benefit from doing > more than what we've done with vendor imports. > > But for OpenZFS I think there's three primary values from store their > branches in our tree and doing merge commits: > > (1) git blame works > (2) it's possible to bisect down to the exact commit > (3) Having the merge commits recorded as merge commits makes future > commits easier (just like vendor branches). > > For most things, I agree with Uli: we should have some flavor of 'squash' > commit that's not really a merge commit to do this. But for OpenZFS, I > think there's enough synergy between the two project that having their > branches in our tree would be a net win for both groups. > > Warner > > >> 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=3Dsys/contrib/openzfs" from the >> >vendor branch be a better way to go than "git merge >> >-Xsubtree=3Dsys/contrib/openzfs"? Especially for stable/13, where I hav= e >> >to "merge" in the whole new vendor/openzfs/zfs-2.1-release branch. >> > >> >mm >> > >> >On 12. 4. 2021 11:02, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein 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 t= o >> >>> 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 an= d >> >>> 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 w= e >> >> have developers working on contrib software, so the slight convenienc= e >> >> 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?CANCZdfoDCACyW0d1wUf6SnYXytF=BbuEYNF=4WM552tdOQq5vA>