"This branch is out-of-date with the base branch"

"This branch is out-of-date with the base branch"

[John Spray]

I've been noticing this status on ceph-qa-suite pull requests, where
there are no merge conflicts but it was just opened a while ago.

I'm guessing this is either a new github thing or something we
enabled?  Can anyone shed any light on what makes a PR be considered
out-of-date?

John

Re: [sepia] "This branch is out-of-date with the base branch"

[Ken Dreyer]

Hi John,

Branch protection is a new GitHub feature, and recently it's enabled
for ceph-qa-suite. Administers of the "ceph" GitHub org can view the
current settings:
https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/settings/branches

It looks like someone recently checked the boxes "Require status
checks to pass before merging" and "Require branches to be up to date
before merging".

This means that PRs cannot merge until both conditions are true:
1) the tests must pass
2) master must be in a state where the PR would be a fast-forward merge

Looking at the audit log,
https://github.com/organizations/ceph/settings/audit-log?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=protected_branch

zmc – protected_branch.update_required_status_checks_enforcement_level
Required status checks for master on ceph/ceph-qa-suite were activated
for non-admins
United States 2 days ago

zmc – required_status_check.create
The status default was marked as required for the branch master on
ceph/ceph-qa-suite
United States 2 days ago

So you can ask Zack about this.

- Ken

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:44 AM, John Spray <jspray@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've been noticing this status on ceph-qa-suite pull requests, where
> there are no merge conflicts but it was just opened a while ago.
>
> I'm guessing this is either a new github thing or something we
> enabled?  Can anyone shed any light on what makes a PR be considered
> out-of-date?
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Sepia mailing list
> Sepia@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/sepia-ceph.com
--
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

Re: [sepia] "This branch is out-of-date with the base branch"

[Ken Dreyer]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
> I know Zack wanted this on teuthology, but I really don't think it's
> acceptable for the qa-suite stuff -- it practically guarantees we won't be
> able to merge what was actually tested!
> Also, those branches need to be coordinated with ceph PRs and continuous
> rebasing of them over the long periods of time that can entail is just not
> feasible.
> -Greg

Personally I like "Require status checks to pass before merging", but
the other setting, "Require branches to be up to date
before merging" setting is pretty strict, particularly when every PR
has to be rebased by hand.

I think OpenStack's Zuul has the right approach - as I understand it,
you can tell Zuul "go ahead merge this if all the tests pass on the
result of what would be merged". GitHub does not have something like
that built in, it seems.

- Ken

Re: [sepia] "This branch is out-of-date with the base branch"

[Gregory Farnum]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I know Zack wanted this on teuthology, but I really don't think it's
>> acceptable for the qa-suite stuff -- it practically guarantees we won't be
>> able to merge what was actually tested!
>> Also, those branches need to be coordinated with ceph PRs and continuous
>> rebasing of them over the long periods of time that can entail is just not
>> feasible.
>> -Greg
>
> Personally I like "Require status checks to pass before merging", but
> the other setting, "Require branches to be up to date
> before merging" setting is pretty strict, particularly when every PR
> has to be rebased by hand.

Oh yes, the fast-forward requirement is what I meant as well — I'm
really glad we flipped the switch to require tests be passing
everywhere!
-Greg
--
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

Re: [sepia] "This branch is out-of-date with the base branch"

[Zack Cerza]

I'm sorry folks - I didn't see this until now (filters?)

I must have changed this the same day I changed teuthology's behavior.
It was a mistake; sorry for any inconvenience!

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I know Zack wanted this on teuthology, but I really don't think it's
>>> acceptable for the qa-suite stuff -- it practically guarantees we won't be
>>> able to merge what was actually tested!
>>> Also, those branches need to be coordinated with ceph PRs and continuous
>>> rebasing of them over the long periods of time that can entail is just not
>>> feasible.
>>> -Greg
>>
>> Personally I like "Require status checks to pass before merging", but
>> the other setting, "Require branches to be up to date
>> before merging" setting is pretty strict, particularly when every PR
>> has to be rebased by hand.
>
> Oh yes, the fast-forward requirement is what I meant as well — I'm
> really glad we flipped the switch to require tests be passing
> everywhere!
> -Greg