Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes

[Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> So, the sequence would be: commit the change to BETA *before* merging?

I would argue that this should be a decision the committer who does
the code review.

Given that JDT is frequently not fast in review feedback and rejects
certain patches, requiring this work upfront seems bad for growing
more community patches in this area.

Best regards, Lars

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:22 PM Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 2) then the author himself creating a gerrit (after conflict resolutions, if any) for the BETA_JAVAn branch.
> > 3) One of the committers working on the BETA_JAVAn branch can commit in the next merge from master to BETA_JAVAn
>
> So, the sequence would be: commit the change to BETA *before* merging?
>
> An important thing is to do master and BETA very close to each other to avoid that the change gets conflicts again.
>
> Dani
>
>
>
> From:        "Manoj Palat" <manoj.palat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To:        eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date:        21.06.2019 06:36
> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
> Sent by:        eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> @Lars : Please find the outline of merge strategy of JDT
>
> (1) JDT creates a BETA_JAVAn [where n=13 currently] for every Java release and the merge from the master to the BETA branch is done regularly - in terms of (1) periodically every milestone (2) regularly if there are major changes in master and (3) if there are major changes in BETA_JAVAn itself.
>
> (2) It should also be noted that the BETA_JAVAn will merge to master every six months - and this merge is fixed to be done in M1 - in fact early M1 - mostly as one of the initial commits given the close release dates of both Eclipse - immediately after March and September releases.
>
> (3) BETA_JAVAn will continue to be available as a Patch on March and September releases of Eclipse - Hence again it is required that the BETA_JAVAn is in sync with master for a smooth patch update.
>
> @Dani:
> I would recommend the following strategy for JDT:
> 1) author merging the massive changes first into master
> 2) then the author himself creating a gerrit (after conflict resolutions, if any) for the BETA_JAVAn branch.
> 3) One of the committers working on the BETA_JAVAn branch can commit in the next merge from master to BETA_JAVAn
>
> We can start with this strategy and see how it goes, and then change accordingly.
>
> Regards,
> Manoj.
>
>
> Lars Vogel ---06/20/2019 09:12:13 PM---What is the merge strategy in JDT? Do they merge master into the feature branch on a regular basis?
>
> From: Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 06/20/2019 09:12 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
> Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> What is the merge strategy in JDT? Do they merge master into the feature branch on a regular basis?
>
> Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am Do., 20. Juni 2019, 17:21:
> The milestone has not yet been decided. Mickael, I would be fine with M1.
>
> What would be better for JDT: Also getting the same change for the branch or do the merge yourself along with all other changes?
>
> Dani
>
>
>
> From:        "Manoj Palat" <manoj.palat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To:        eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date:        20.06.2019 06:55
> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
> Sent by:        eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks Sarika for bringing this point out.
>
> A mass change which has proven benefits is always welcome and really appreciate the time and effort of people who do that.
>
> However, JDT changes themselve are massive and frequent due to the interplay of three month release of Eclipse combined with the six month release cadence of Java - sometimes the merging efforts themselves vie for being a subproject of Eclipse :).
>
> Given these two factors, I totally agree especially from JDT projects pov, M1 can be (and should be the only) the point in which such proven mass changes can be incorporated.
>
> Regards,
> Manoj
>
> "Sarika Sinha" ---06/20/2019 09:58:49 AM---There are few points to be considered - 1. Problem is not with the trivial code changes, problem is
>
> From: "Sarika Sinha" <sarika.sinha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 06/20/2019 09:58 AM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
> Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> There are few points to be considered -
> 1. Problem is not with the trivial code changes, problem is in managing the merge conflicts either during this mass change by the contributor or by other contributors after this mass change is released. (As I have seen it happening this week where contributor is struggling to rebase the mass change gerrits)
> 2. This merging turns to be an evil specially for JDT repositories where new Java version work happens in a different branch (due to legal constraints).
>
> I am OK with the mass changes in M1 but it should be a call of the component based on the timeline and other feature development going on in parallel like JDT.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Sarika
>
> "Daniel Megert" ---06/20/2019 06:01:32 AM---Thanks Mickael, that's a good approach which works fine with me. As for the review, yes a second per
>
> From: "Daniel Megert" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: 06/20/2019 06:01 AM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
> Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Thanks Mickael, that's a good approach which works fine with me.
>
> As for the review, yes a second person besides the owner must give a code-review+1 (or+2), but for mass changes with (apparently) trivial code changes I would be OK if only random samples are reviewed.
>
> Dani
>
>
>
> From: Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx" <eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 19.06.2019 18:53
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
> Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> My 2c below ;)
>
> About !longChain.isEmpty() vs longChain.size() > 0, I favor the first one because isEmpty() is theorically a O(1) operation while size() is a O(n). Of course, most of smart enough implementations have this optimized and make size() a O(1), but there is usually no guarantee it is so. So size() is more expensive that isEmpty() and should be preferred.
> About readability, I understand the concern and I would like to suggest an alternative for that case: longChain.isEmpty() == false, which seems to have the qualities requested by all parties.
>
> About requiring a review for mass changes, +1.
> About not allowing mass change after some milestone, +1.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> --
> Mickael Istria
> Eclipse IDE developer, for Red Hat Developers
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
>
> [attachment "graycol.gif" deleted by Daniel Megert/Zurich/IBM] _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc_______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
>
> [attachment "graycol.gif" deleted by Daniel Megert/Zurich/IBM] _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-pmc mailing list
> eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc



-- 
Eclipse Platform project co-lead
CEO vogella GmbH

Haindaalwisch 17a, 22395 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg: HRB 127058
Geschäftsführer: Lars Vogel, Jennifer Nerlich de Vogel
USt-IdNr.: DE284122352
Fax (040) 5247 6322, Email: lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx, Web: http://www.vogella.com