-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 964
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cleanup jira's concept of 'master' and '6.0' [LUCENE-7271] #8326
Comments
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) I haven't seen any objections to this plan, and i haven't been able to think of any flaws or possible improvements. My plan is to start working through these steps tomorrow (Friday) morning ~9AM my time, (~1600 UTC) Steps S1-S4 will need to be done carefully and in a single block to reduce the risk of missing issues edited between steps (but obviously skimming mail for issues people modify during that window can be done after the fact). Steps S5 & S6 should be done ASAP after that to reduce confusion as people read/edit jiras, but don't need to be rushed (ie: i'll go to lunch at some point) and can be divided up among multiple people if other folks want to volunteer. I'll track progress with comments here, and attach the reports i generate from S1, S5, and S6 to this issue as i go. I'll be on freenodes #lucene IRC channel the whole time if people have concerns or want to coordinate on helping out with S5 & S6. |
Anshum Gupta (@anshumg) (migrated from JIRA) LGTM Hoss. There's on thing that I don't have clarity on though.
How would this be ever true, considering that the list that you'd generate would have fix version as master AND 6.1? I would like to help but I'm not sure if I'd be available as I'm traveling for Apache Big Data tomorrow. I'll try and sync up on IRC if I can help. |
Michael McCandless (@mikemccand) (migrated from JIRA) Thank you @hossman! |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA)
It shouldn't ever be true, and it might be paranoied overkill on my part, but ultimately i'm just trying to cover all the basis in terms of "this issue has 'master' in fixVersion, what was the intent when that was added?" Imagine this hypothetical timeline...
That said, your question made me realize i overlooked something that should definitely be part of S5: We need to keep an eye out for issues that were backported to branch_6x after branch_6_0 was created, and were not backported to branch-6_0 – in which case fixVersion=6.0 needs removed in S5. In my original brainstorming of this plan, i was going to do this audit twice (once before merging the versions when "master" could be removed from issues w/only "master" commits, and once after to add 6.0 in the paranoia case described above) making this extra check unneccessary. But this order seemed better because it means we only have to audit the list one time, w/o any time pressure and w/o the list continually growing as people resolve more 6.1 issues. (S6 should also catch these issues, but i wanted redundency since it's possible people made issue# typos in the git commit messages) I've updated the steps in the issue description accordingly. |
Steven Rowe (@sarowe) (migrated from JIRA) Looking at a different JIRA version problem (see http://markmail.org/message/6ac5szyce3qhoo3l), I noticed that LUCENE (and not SOLR) has version contstants I think this is a related problem to the master->6.0 issue being dealt with here. Should we even have |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA)
I think it is a similar class of problem, and a similar audit could/should be done to fix those issues, but the specific steps needed to assess those issues and deal with that confusion will be distinctly diff from what needs done here to fix "master" (which affects a few order of magnitude more issues) I'd really prefer not discuss 5.x/6x anymore in this jira and confuse/complicate the issue anymore. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Step S1... Attaching 2 files:
|
Steven Rowe (@sarowe) (migrated from JIRA)
I created #8330 for this. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Didn't even make it to Step Jira's "Bulk Edit" feature has been seriously hobbled since the last time i used it...
I think Step S2 needs to be scrapped. I would really like to have distinct comments identifying all of the issues, both because it would make it easy to search for all affected issues (and filter that search by other factors) but also so it shows up if/when people read the comments in these issues in case something gets missing in Steps S5 and S6 – but I just don't think that's possible. My next best suggestion is to just run excel/csv reports for the queries in S2 (just like S1) and attache them to this issue for posterity. I'll revise the description of the issue to reflect the new plan, and put everythine on hold until monday in case anyone has better suggestions. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) revised description based on the fact that jira bulk edits are fucking useless now. I'll start this process over again at S1 on monday unless i hear otherwise. |
Cassandra Targett (@ctargett) (migrated from JIRA)
Oh right, if the issue is closed already, you can't edit the fix version at all (and it gives that rather unhelpful message about permissions). Assuming that is the problem for those issues, we would need to reopen all those in order to fix the version then close them again. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA)
Bulk Edit is already stressfull enough, I'd really really rather not Bulk Edit once to re-open the subset of issues that are currently closed issues (and add one comment to keep track of them) then Bulk Edit (2 more times) to add the comments i originally wanted to add, then Bulk Edit a third time to re-close issues from the 1st time ... ...particulaly since we're only assuming that's the problem. who knows what other "workflow" constraints might be in place to prevent me from doing a No-op Bulk Edit to add a comment to all the issues (they've clearly added a lot more "smarts" to bulk editing lately, so i'm not even sure a No-Op edit that just adds a comment will even work at this point) At this point I personally just really want to avoid the Bulk Edits – but i'm happy to hand this issue off to someone else if they feel more confident then me about being able to follow the original plan :) |
Anshum Gupta (@anshumg) (migrated from JIRA) Hoss, I need to close out the issues for 5.5.1 and also move the unresolved ones to 5.5.2 but I'm sure there's an intersection there with the issues here. If you haven't already started on that OR think that my update wouldn't interfere, I'd go ahead with mine.
I'm traveling so I may only be able to check on this later at night (or right now). |
Chris Hostetter (Unused) (migrated from JIRA) Closing all issues with a certain fix version affects nothing. You can't do any bulk changing of fix versions w/o completely replacing all fix versions on an issue, so don't bother trying - that's completely independent from anything I've got planned. Just leave unresolved issues alone, (or edit them individually) -Hoss |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Starting again today... ....AAAAANNNNNDDDDD Aparently Jira silently drops anything after the first 100 issues when exporting. So, we can work around this by doing an export with "pagination", but for our 3 diff reports that's ~45 URLs to keep straight, so i'm going to try and bang out a little perl script to make sure i don't miss something. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Ok ... i will not let jira defeat me. Attaching many files...
...moving on to S3 & S4 |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Versions merged ... no going back now.
Going ot grab some lunch and then start working my way through S5 and S6 this afternoon FYI: Jira's "Merge Versions" feature is really weird (and really slow) now .... it spins for a while and then returns, but hte "old" version is still listed on the version screen (for a while). It appears that it spins up a background thread that iterates over every individual issue in the background and change them, causing concurrent queries you try from the browser for the "old" version to slowly see decreasing results over time, until evnetually there are no results found, and then the old version disappears from the list of Verions. In fact: If you view "All" Activity for any of the issues that use to be assocaited with the (old) 'master' version, it says i edited the fixVersion and changed it to 6.0, and it says the "updated" date for all of these issues is "Just now" |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Oh, and before i forget: Since it took so long to run the reports & merge the versions, I reviewed all jira email notifications from this morning (up until my last comment made it to my mail spool) to sanity check there were no issues that got "resolved" with fixVersion=master after/during running the above reports, but before i merged the versions – there was nothing there to worry about. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) Status update...
|
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) S5 complete, moving on to S6. |
Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman) (migrated from JIRA) S6: DONE ...and now returning to my regularly scheduled life. |
Anshum Gupta (@anshumg) (migrated from JIRA) Thanks Hoss! |
Jira's concept of "Fix Version: master" is currently screwed up, as noted & discussed in this mailing list thread...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201604.mbox/%3Calpine.DEB.2.11.1604131529140.15570@tray%3E
The current best plan of attack (summary) is:
master
into6.0
master (7.0)
to use moving forwardI'm using this issue to track this work.
Detailed Check list of planned steps:
*** master: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20%28LUCENE%2C%20SOLR%29%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20master%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
*** 6.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20%28LUCENE%2C%20SOLR%29%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%206.0%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
** these reports can be attached to this issue (LUCENE-7271) for posterity in case people want to later review what the state of any issue was before this whole process was started and versions were changed/merged
git co releases/lucene-solr/6.0.0 && git cherry -v master | egrep '^\+'
to find changesets on master that were not included in 6.0Migrated from LUCENE-7271 by Chris M. Hostetter (@hossman), resolved May 11 2016
Attachments: jira_export.pl, LUCENE-7271_S1_report.csv (versions: 2), LUCENE-7271_S1_report.xls (versions: 2), LUCENE-7271_S2_6.0_report.xml, LUCENE-7271_S2_master_report.tgz, LUCENE-7271_S5_hoss_todo.txt, LUCENE-7271_S6_report.txt
Linked issues:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: