From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Dillaman Subject: Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:22:52 -0400 Message-ID: References: <57AAEEC2.3060108@dachary.org> <57AB95F9.3050101@dachary.org> Reply-To: dillaman@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:33853 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbcHKNWy convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:22:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id fi15so1003097pac.1 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:22:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <57AB95F9.3050101@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Loic Dachary Cc: Mykola Golub , Ceph Development No worries. My usual routine just involves pulling up master and jewel branch merge logs for all RBD-related subdirectories in two terminals (for PR merge timeline reference), pulling up the original PR to backport, and then just cherry-pick until a conflict is hit. When that happens, I locate which previous PR made the conflicting change and cherry-pick it into the same backport branch. With this technique, you'll end up with PRs with the same cherry-picked commits. You'll be able to cleanly merge them into a testing branch, but when it comes time to merge into the jewel branch you'll need to rebase some PRs to automatically strip out the duplicate cherry-picks. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > > > On 10/08/2016 22:14, Jason Dillaman wrote: >> Loic, >> >> If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. > > That would be great. Alternatively, if that's less time consuming for you, just suggest a backport order and I'll figure it out. > > Cheers > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> Hi Mykola, >>> >>> There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. >>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 >>> >>> Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd >>> >>> would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 >>> >>> What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. >>> >>> There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. >>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your guidance ! >>> >>> -- >>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- Jason