[Development] Proposal: New branch model

Aleksey Kontsevich tantrido at ya.ru
Thu Jan 24 11:54:30 CET 2019


Good point. Also thinking this way every time need to deal with Gerrit. Any chance to replace it to something more modern and convenient and less time wasting like GitLab, etc?

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich


24.01.2019, 12:28, "Vitaly Fanaskov" <vitaly.fanaskov at qt.io>:
>>     Why not X instead?
>>     ------------------
>>
>>     - GitFlow, GitHub <= both are based on feature branches, that doesn't work
>>  well with gerrit.
>
> So, the only problem here is gerrit (aside from personal preferences and
> habits of course). The question is shouldn't we abandon gerrit as this
> tool doesn't feet with the needs well? Inventing new approaches is of
> course super cool... But not always necessary.
>
> What's wrong with using, say, gitflow + gitlab + upsource? Upsource is
> optional, but it's the way better for code review than gerrit.
>
> On 1/23/19 4:51 PM, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>
>>     It is time to rethink our branch model. We are approaching Qt6 development
>>  and I'm worried that what we have now, will simply not scale. As you know, our
>>  branch model is mainly(*) based on merging from stable up to development
>>  branches. In general, it is a very good model, which make sure that release
>>  branches are not getting obsolete too quickly, that most of the fixes are in
>>  the right places, that every commit is only once in the git history. It is a
>>  very clean model. It is also a very slow model, with a single point of
>>  failure.
>>
>>     It is hard to maintain:
>>     My impression is that the current model works great for a single release
>>  branch, but we have: 5.6 5.9 5.12 and soon we will have 5.13, that is without
>>  counting temporary patch level branches. Merging through them is hard, we
>>  already had to use "cherry-pick mode" in some places. When we add to the
>>  picture dev and qt6 branches, merging will be very, very hard. It is
>>  practically a full time job to update qt5 repository and coordinate all the
>>  merges now (thank you Liang!), shortly after qt6 branch opening amount of work
>>  will be much bigger.
>>     It is slow:
>>     The merges take time. We produce a lot of code, we have a lot of tests that
>>  needs to pass. Even single failure delays merge propagation by at least one
>>  day. If by bad luck, the merge contains some API incompatible changes an
>>  intermediate jump through Qt5 integration is required, that adds at least 3
>>  days of delay.
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Proposal in short: let's use cherry-pick mode everywhere.
>>
>>     All(**) changes would go to dev. From which they would be automatically
>>  cherry-picked by a bot to other branches. The decision to which branch cherry-
>>  pick, would be taken based on a tag in the commit message. We could add a
>>  footer that marks the change risk level as in quip-5 (http://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0005.html), so for example "dev", "stable", "LTS". By
>>  default everything would be cherry-picked to qt6 branch unless "no-future" tag
>>  would be given. Of course we can bike-shed about the tag names.
>>
>>     Advantages:
>>     - no waiting for merges, a fix can be used right away after integration
>>     - faster propagation of fixes targeting all branches, as there are no merges
>>  of merges
>>     - simpler for new contributors, always push to dev
>>     - in most cases a reviewer does no need to know what the current version
>>  number is
>>     - conflict resolution is distributed and affects mostly the author of the
>>  change
>>     - documents a change intent, which may be useful for people keeping own
>>  forks
>>     - over time with increased amount of conflicts old branches, in natural way,
>>  stay untouched
>>
>>     Disadvantages:
>>     - git history would be a bit wilder, "git branch --contains" would not work
>>     - commit messages in some branches would have kind of ugly footer as an
>>  effect of "cherry-pick -x"
>>     - there is a chance, that some cherry-picked commits may be left forgotten
>>  in gerrit after a failed integration
>>
>>     Bot details:
>>
>>     The bot would listen only for changes in dev, in some unusual cases one
>>  could target an other branch directly, but bot would not trigger automatic
>>  cherry-pick(***). The bot would wait for a successful dev integration before
>>  creating cherry-picked changes. The bot would use cherry-pick -x to annotate
>>  the origin patch. After the cherry-pick creation, it would push it to gerrit,
>>  +2 and stage once. It would be up to the author to re-stage in case of
>>  flakiness. In case of a cherry-pick conflict it should push unresolved conflict
>>  to gerrit and add all reviewers and author to handle the issue.
>>
>>  The list below shows branch targets for automatic cherry-pick based on given
>>  tag.
>>
>>  dev (qt6)
>>  stable (qt6, 5.13)
>>  stable, no-future (5.13)
>>  LTS (qt6, 5.13, 5.12)
>>  LTS-strict (qt6, 5.13, 5.12, 5.9)
>>  LTS, no-future (5.13, 5.12)
>>
>>  That is assuming that we have branches: qt6 dev 5.13 5.13.q 5.12 5.12.w
>>  5.9 5.9.e 5.6 5.6.r
>>  I think we should assume that patch level branches, as well LTS in very strict
>>  state, are handled manually.
>>
>>     Creation of new branches:
>>  We would branch more or less as usual. The only difference from the current
>>  system is that we would not need the back merge / soft branching anymore, but
>>  of course we could keep it.
>>
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Why not X instead?
>>     ------------------
>>
>>     - GitFlow, GitHub <= both are based on feature branches, that doesn't work
>>  well with gerrit.
>>     - Stay with the current solution <= the merge effort is too big and qt6 is
>>  expected to cause conflicts that really should not be solved by one person
>>
>>     What to do around Qt6 release?
>>     ------------------------------
>>
>>     Replace dev branch with qt6 branch content, do not use "no-future" tag
>>  anymore. From a random contributor perspective nothing changes.
>>
>>     Can we use annotate instead of cherry-pick -x?
>>     ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>     No, but we should use it in addition. Annotations are mutable, therefore are
>>  not 100% trust worthy. If we have both, we could validate annotations against
>>  commit message, sadly it would not protect against annotation removal.
>>
>>     Can we use gerrit change id instead of cherry-pick -x?
>>     ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Yes, but it would tie us more with gerrit. I do not think it is good in long
>>  term, but as long we are using gerrit one can use gerrit id as a unique id of
>>  a concept behind a change (a change my look differently in different branches).
>>
>>     How migration would look like?
>>     ------------------------------
>>
>>     It would be quite automatic. We need to:
>>     1. block access to gerrit
>>     2. re-target all changes to dev branch (a part from topic branches) and
>>  amend commit message based on the original target branch
>>     3. enable warning in sanity bot for all branches, excluding dev and topic
>>  branches, so it warns about wrongly pushed changes
>>     4. enable cherry-pick bot
>>     5. unblock gerrit access
>>
>>     What about existing topic branches?
>>     -----------------------------------
>>
>>     Nothing really. We still can use them and merge them to dev with a right
>>  tag.
>>
>>     What if we need a release blocker fix, right now!
>>     -------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     The setup prioritize dev. So a release branch would get a fix with a delay of
>>  one dev integration. In __exceptional__ situations nothing prevent us from
>>  cherry-picking in the opposite direction.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>     Jędrek
>>
>>  (*) because of the issues described in the email, some LTS branches are
>>  already in the cherry-pick mode.
>>  (**) with exception of branch specific changes.
>>  (***) unless proven to be useful
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Development mailing list
>>  Development at qt-project.org
>>  https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Fanaskov Vitaly
> Senior Software Engineer
>
> The Qt Company / Qt Quick and Widgets Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development



More information about the Development mailing list