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

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Mon May 12 10:09:56 UTC 2014


On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 09:00:28PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> 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.

Please let's stay technical and considerate to one another. This
discussion has took the route of bikeshedding already.

On the topic of every patch builds, yes, I prefer that too and I should
have reviewed this aspect of the patchset. But it's not worth bringing up
on the devel list in more context than something to keep in mind for
next time.



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list