Add instructions for creating backport PRs #36593
Conversation
sivel
requested review from
mattclay,
gundalow,
dharmabumstead and
nitzmahone
ansibot
added
docs_pull_request
needs_triage
|
This needs reviews from the RMs too. Added as requested reviewers. |
gundalow
removed
the
needs_triage
|
|
||
| git checkout devel | ||
| git --fetch upstream | ||
| git merge upstream/devel |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually a pull --rebase is better to make sure any local changes are 'on top', but this is actually not needed at all since we are updating stable-2.5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, part of this is based around my workflow, and my devel is never diverged from upstream/devel, so a git merge upstream/devel always applies correctly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
he, i always diverge devel, then push to diff branch
| git --fetch upstream | ||
| git merge upstream/devel | ||
| git checkout stable-2.5 | ||
| git pull |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be --rebase to ensure local changes are applied to the top
this also assumes stable-2.5 was already preexisting on the local repo, i would instead use this step and leave the other as an 'option' if you already have stable-2.5
git checkout upstream/stable-2.5 -b stable-2.5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't necessarily assume stable-2.5 was already pre-exisiting. The first time you try to checkout a branch, if it's not local, it's pulled from one of the remotes.
In which case, you should never need --rebase, since that branch is from upstream.
But yes, there are a lot of assumptions when trying to talk git workflow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've had issues with the branch autoselection, but probably cause i have multiple remotes with the branch, in any case you should specify which one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if checking out new, there is no need for pull, if the branch existed locally, doing pull w/o a --rebase can create issues (user had local commits)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the end you can reduce most of these lines to 2 steps
git --fetch upstream
git checkout upstream/stable-2.5 -b cherry-pick/2.5/[PR_NUMBER_FROM_DEVEL]
| git checkout stable-2.5 | ||
| git pull | ||
| git checkout -b cherry-pick/2.5/[PR_NUMBER_FROM_DEVEL] | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure why this step is needed, since the instructions assume devel has the commit as seen below
or is this intended to work as a rename? -m ? could just checkout upstream/stable-2.5 directly into the desired name
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I understand this comment. The idea is that we are creating a feature branch from a stable branch, cherry picking into the stable feature branch from devel, so we can push and create a PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, checkout is not really best way, it seems you just want -m (rename)
|
|
||
| .. note:: | ||
|
|
||
| The choice to use ``cherry-pick/2.5/[PR_NUMBER_FROM_DEVEL]`` as the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bikeshed: i would recommend 'backport' instead of cherry-pick as sometimes the PR will not be possible to be made by cherry-picking (too much code changed).
simpler workflow
|
|
||
| .. note:: | ||
|
|
||
| These instructions assume that ``https://github.com/ansible/ansible.git`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... and that the origin remote refers to your personal Ansible fork.
added origin note
|
posted a couple of edits as suggestions, feel free to blow away |
|
The test |
ansibot
added
ci_verified
ansibot
removed
ci_verified
| #. Prepare your devel, stable, and feature branches: | ||
|
|
||
| :: | ||
| git --fetch upstream |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need a blank line here to fix formatting
| .. note:: | ||
|
|
||
| These instructions assume that ``https://github.com/<yourgithubaccount>/ansible.git`` | ||
| is configured as a `git remote`` named ``origin``. If you do not use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing ` in-front of git remote
|
Tested and worked for me. |
I have not. It wouldn't be too hard, but the changelog part would be omitted, unless whatever did it paused waiting for you to confirm, or tried to do it on it's own with assumptions. It would also have to be tolerant of merge conflicts. Going to proceed with merging this as is. |
* Add instructions for creating backport PRs * Update development_process.rst simpler workflow * Update development_process.rst added origin note * A few adjustments to clarity, use backport instead of cherry pick in branch name * Address formatting issue * fetch isn't a flag * Fix rst formatting (cherry picked from commit 076ea07)
ansibot
added
docs
SUMMARY
Add instructions for creating backport PRs
ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
docs/docsite/rst/community/development_process.rst
ANSIBLE VERSION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION