[SSSD] [PATCH] DEBUG macro refactoring - 1.11 backport

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Fri May 9 19:00:28 UTC 2014


On (09/05/14 15:09), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>On 05/05/2014 10:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (01/05/14 00:51), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>One thing, though: having the script-generated patches separate certainly made
>>>cherry-picking easier and faster.
>>>
>>The patches were pushed, so we can continue with this discussion.
>>
>>The only way how to make chery-picking easier is to have better merging
>>algorithm in version control syste. The script generated patches solve problem
>>with back porting changes to diverged branches.
>>
>>I am not against script generated patches. I like scripting, it simplifies my
>>life. My idea was to have script which will fix(convert) 99% of cases and
>>the last 1% of corner cases can be solved easily by hand.
>>Sometimes it is easier to fix the last 1% of problems by hand rather than
>>spending days with creating a robust conversion script. But the main point is
>>to include hand made changes to the generated patch and not to the separate
>>patch. With this approach work is simplified with script and we don't lost
>>benefit "every patch builds"
>
>The reason why I would sacrifice the "every patch builds" rule, originally,
>was to simplify backporting to older branches, which would likely be
>different and thus simply cherry-picking the monolithic (scripted+manual
>changes) commit would not be possible to do with confidence, and re-running
>the script would be necessary (which I did with this backport).
>
>In that case, my idea was, keeping manual changes separate would allow us to
>simply cherry-pick them, without having to extract them from the monolithic
>commit by hand or to do them again.
>
It was very bad assumption that patch which changed 215 files
( 7825 insertions, 7825 deletions) would be possible to cherry-pick
to older branch without any problem. This is a reason why script was written.

>However, now I realize that we could have simply ran the script on the commit
>before the original and made a diff to extract manual changes, which we could
>have then applied on the older tree, after running the script there.
>
Backporting much simpler patches can be difficult. I already wrote in previous
mail how it should be done.

>So, yes, it is possible to have "every patch builds" and also to backport
>scripted+manual patches reliably. The script in question would better be
>included with such commits, though.
>
The script was included in commit message.
At least, you learnt something new and will not do the same mistake in future.

LS




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list