Re: Coping with the pull-before-you-push model
- From
- Eugene Sajine <euguess@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 14, 2010, 16:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTi=Yg-Pgu7E_hxzPVToO0wDjiTm=NxKPdrgk9JaE@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4C8F99FA.3040003@workspacewhiz.com>
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Joshua Jensen <jjensen@workspacewhiz.com> wrote:
Show 57 quoted lines
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Theodore Tso > Date: 9/14/2010 6:12 AM >> >> On Sep 14, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Joshua Jensen wrote: >>>> >>>> Bear in mind that you can still shift to a maintainer model, but keep >>>> the maintainer automated. That is, you can queue up "to-pull" heads, and >>>> then have an automated process pull them one by one and do some basic QA >>>> (does it merge, does it build, does it pass automated tests, etc). Which >>> >>> Do you know of any existing software that does this? This may be ideal >>> in the short ter >> >> Our workflow at $WORK involves pushing changes to gerrit to various >> "effort branches", and then once they are approved, we have a "Mergitator" >> script that will attempt to merge the effort branch with the merged master >> branch, and then attempt to do a build. If the build succeeds, then the >> changes will get pushed back to the publically visible merged master branch, >> and then the Mergitator will move on to the next effort branch that requires >> merging. If there is a merge conflict, the Mergitator will refuse the >> merge, and then give instructions on how to fix up the tree to avoid merge >> conflicts. >> > How does the integration with Gerrit work here? The only thing that comes > to mind is that you do something like: > > git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/merged-master > > Then the approvals are done. Afterward, Gerrit merges to the merged-master > branch. > > I would suppose an external script is performing regular fetches. When it > sees new code, it builds. > > No, this can't be right, but I'll leave my incorrect workflow here. >> >> So this probably doesn't help you since I suspect you meant to ask the >> question, "do you know of any existing publically available software", but I >> can tell you that it certainly can be done, and that software exists. >> Making it be software which is useful and usable to you would definitely >> take more work... > > It's the branch queueing issue that is my current hang up. Gerrit's method > is slick, but that won't work outside of JGit. I'm not opposed to JGit; I > just haven't touched Java in years. > > So, perhaps, a web interface where the branch owner selects the (pushed to > central server) branch name that is ready to go. A merge is attempted. If > it succeeds, great. If it fails, then the merge is reset? > > Josh > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
In our case we have moved from CVS to git and had pretty much same problems. The only difference was that we are working with java and trying to have every project in separate repository. So we don't have many commits into common codebase. We have a server keeping bare mainline repos. In order to integrate the project with others we are using Hudson CI which performs builds upon each change detected on the server side (i.e. mainline repository) and also builds the projects that are dependent on the one you just changed. Those dependencies can be described inside each hudson job, but we are using Ivy for dependency management. If you have good testing infrastructure that is even better.
So generally the amount of contributors to one project is pretty small. Some projects are solo, some have small teams coworking on one project code base.
We are using two main branch model. The development goes in topic branches. The qa branch is a staging branch for the changes to be accumulated for the release. People are using direct pushes to qa branch to integrate or a maintainer. Hudson builds this codebase. When all release functionality is done the person responsible for the release is merging qa branch into the master, which gets released (this must be a fast-forward).
So, i would say component oriented approach is the key here.
HTH, Eugene