Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Kafka >> mail # dev >> git workflow


+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-02, 21:45
+
Jun Rao 2013-01-03, 16:18
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 04:35
+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-05, 05:30
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 05:41
+
David Arthur 2013-01-05, 17:38
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 18:43
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 19:02
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-06, 05:36
+
Derek Chen-Becker 2013-01-07, 05:52
+
David Arthur 2013-01-07, 14:45
+
Derek Chen-Becker 2013-01-07, 15:06
+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-07, 16:07
+
Derek Chen-Becker 2013-01-07, 16:33
+
David Arthur 2013-01-02, 22:17
+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-03, 00:03
Copy link to this message
-
Re: git workflow
On 1/2/13 7:03 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> David,
>
> So are there any changes you think we should make to the instructions? I
> think what I wrote matches what you are describing.
I think what you've got in the wiki is great (didn't read it before
sending my message earlier - oops)
> The git patch support does seem better since I think it maintains
> authorship and allows you to transmit multiple commits as a single file (if
> needed).
The only downside of the patch set vs an single diff is sometimes you
don't want people to see all your incremental development. In this case,
a developer could squash commits locally before generating the patch set.
> -Jay
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here is what I've been doing
>>
>> * Clone Kafka locally (git clone git://github.com/apache/kafka.**git<http://github.com/apache/kafka.git>
>> )
>> * Create feature branch off of trunk (git branch KAFKA-657)
>> * Do work on the feature branch
>> * Rebase from trunk (git rebase trunk). This minimizes or eliminates any
>> conflicts when people try to apply your patch.
>> * Generate a diff like: git diff HEAD~5 > KAFKA-657v7.diff (this
>> essentially squashes all my commits into one diff)
>>
>> To apply a patch and test I would (in theory), create a local branch from
>> trunk (e.g., KAFKA-657-integration), apply the patch (git apply
>> KAFKA-657v7.diff), and test the patch.
>>
>> Another approach would be to use the built-in Git patch stuff (git
>> format-patch and git am). git format-patch will create a patch file per
>> commit, which may or may not be what you want.
>>
>> Pushing local changes to a fork in GitHub is also pretty simple. You just
>> need to have both GitHub repositories set up as remotes in your local
>> repository. E.g., add your GitHub fork as a separate remote "git remote add
>> mumrah [EMAIL PROTECTED]:mumrah/kafka.**git", then push your feature branch
>> to it "git push mumrah KAFKA-675"
>>
>> HTH
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/2/13 4:45 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about other people but I find git kind of confusing. I
>>> thought
>>> it would be useful to try to document the normal workflow for different
>>> use
>>> cases:
>>> 1. Contributing a patch
>>> 2. Reviewing and integrating a patch that is contributed
>>> 3. Doing development as a committer
>>> 4. Keeping a copy of your local work on github (since it doesn't seem
>>> Apache has a place to keep local backups of work in progress).
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/KAFKA/Git+**Workflow<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Git+Workflow>
>>>
>>> I would like to link this up from the contributor page to help people
>>> (including my future self). Objections?
>>>
>>> I am not a git expert, so any feedback to improve these recipes or bug
>>> fixes (since I haven't tried everything) would be very much appreciated.
>>> If
>>> you are about to do one of the above things, try the recipe and see if it
>>> can be improved.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Jay
>>>
>>>