243 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
243 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
# Automatic CE->EE merge
|
|
|
|
Commits pushed to CE `master` are automatically merged into EE `master` roughly
|
|
every 5 minutes. Changes are merged using the `recursive=ours` merge strategy in
|
|
the context of EE. This means that any merge conflicts are resolved by taking
|
|
the EE changes and discarding the CE changes. This removes the need for
|
|
resolving conflicts or reverting changes, at the cost of **absolutely
|
|
requiring** EE merge requests to be created whenever a CE merge request causes
|
|
merge conflicts. Failing to do so can result in changes not making their way
|
|
into EE.
|
|
|
|
## Always create an EE merge request if there are conflicts
|
|
|
|
In CI there is a job called `ee_compat_check`, which checks if a CE MR causes
|
|
merge conflicts with EE. If this job reports conflicts, you **must** create an
|
|
EE merge request. If you are an external contributor you can ask the reviewer to
|
|
do this for you.
|
|
|
|
## Always merge EE merge requests before their CE counterparts
|
|
|
|
**In order to avoid conflicts in the CE->EE merge, you should always merge the
|
|
EE version of your CE merge request first, if present.**
|
|
|
|
Failing to do so will lead to CE changes being discarded when merging into EE,
|
|
if they cause merge conflicts.
|
|
|
|
## Avoiding CE->EE merge conflicts beforehand
|
|
|
|
To avoid the conflicts beforehand, check out the
|
|
[Guidelines for implementing Enterprise Edition features](ee_features.md).
|
|
|
|
In any case, the CI `ee_compat_check` job will tell you if you need to open an
|
|
EE version of your CE merge request.
|
|
|
|
### Conflicts detection in CE merge requests
|
|
|
|
For each commit (except on `master`), the `ee_compat_check` CI job tries to
|
|
detect if the current branch's changes will conflict during the CE->EE merge.
|
|
|
|
The job reports what files are conflicting and how to set up a merge request
|
|
against EE.
|
|
|
|
#### How the job works
|
|
|
|
1. Generates the diff between your branch and current CE `master`
|
|
1. Tries to apply it to current EE `master`
|
|
1. If it applies cleanly, the job succeeds, otherwise...
|
|
1. Detects a branch with the `ee-` prefix or `-ee` suffix in EE
|
|
1. If it exists, generate the diff between this branch and current EE `master`
|
|
1. Tries to apply it to current EE `master`
|
|
1. If it applies cleanly, the job succeeds
|
|
|
|
In the case where the job fails, it means you should create an `ee-<ce_branch>`
|
|
or `<ce_branch>-ee` branch, push it to EE and open a merge request against EE
|
|
`master`.
|
|
At this point if you retry the failing job in your CE merge request, it should
|
|
now pass.
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
|
- This task is not a silver-bullet, its current goal is to bring awareness to
|
|
developers that their work needs to be ported to EE.
|
|
- Community contributors shouldn't be required to submit merge requests against
|
|
EE, but reviewers should take actions by either creating such EE merge request
|
|
or asking a GitLab developer to do it **before the merge request is merged**.
|
|
- If you branch is too far behind `master`, the job will fail. In that case you
|
|
should rebase your branch upon latest `master`.
|
|
- Code reviews for merge requests often consist of multiple iterations of
|
|
feedback and fixes. There is no need to update your EE MR after each
|
|
iteration. Instead, create an EE MR as soon as you see the
|
|
`ee_compat_check` job failing. After you receive the final approval
|
|
from a Maintainer (but **before the CE MR is merged**) update the EE MR.
|
|
This helps to identify significant conflicts sooner, but also reduces the
|
|
number of times you have to resolve conflicts.
|
|
- Please remember to
|
|
[always have your EE merge request merged before the CE version](#always-merge-ee-merge-requests-before-their-ce-counterparts).
|
|
- You can use [`git rerere`](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rerere)
|
|
to avoid resolving the same conflicts multiple times.
|
|
|
|
### Cherry-picking from CE to EE
|
|
|
|
For avoiding merge conflicts, we use a method of creating equivalent branches
|
|
for CE and EE. If the `ee-compat-check` job fails, this process is required.
|
|
|
|
This method only requires that you have cloned both CE and EE into your computer.
|
|
If you don't have them yet, please go ahead and clone them:
|
|
|
|
- Clone CE repo: `git clone git@gitlab.com:gitlab-org/gitlab-foss.git`
|
|
- Clone EE repo: `git clone git@gitlab.com:gitlab-org/gitlab.git`
|
|
|
|
And the only additional setup we need is to add CE as remote of EE and vice-versa:
|
|
|
|
- Open two terminal windows, one in CE, and another one in EE:
|
|
- In EE: `git remote add ce git@gitlab.com:gitlab-org/gitlab-foss.git`
|
|
- In CE: `git remote add ee git@gitlab.com:gitlab-org/gitlab.git`
|
|
|
|
That's all setup we need, so that we can cherry-pick a commit from CE to EE, and
|
|
from EE to CE.
|
|
|
|
Now, every time you create an MR for CE and EE:
|
|
|
|
1. Open two terminal windows, one in CE, and another one in EE
|
|
1. In the CE terminal:
|
|
1. Create the CE branch, e.g., `branch-example`
|
|
1. Make your changes and push a commit (commit A)
|
|
1. Create the CE merge request in GitLab
|
|
1. In the EE terminal:
|
|
1. Create the EE-equivalent branch ending with `-ee`, e.g.,
|
|
`git checkout -b branch-example-ee`
|
|
1. Fetch the CE branch: `git fetch ce branch-example`
|
|
1. Cherry-pick the commit A: `git cherry-pick commit-A-SHA`
|
|
1. If Git prompts you to fix the conflicts, do a `git status`
|
|
to check which files contain conflicts, fix them, save the files
|
|
1. Add the changes with `git add .` but **DO NOT commit** them
|
|
1. Continue cherry-picking: `git cherry-pick --continue`
|
|
1. Push to EE: `git push origin branch-example-ee`
|
|
1. Create the EE-equivalent MR and link to the CE MR from the
|
|
description `Ports [CE-MR-LINK] to EE`
|
|
1. Once all the jobs are passing in both CE and EE, you've addressed the
|
|
feedback from your own team, and got them approved, the merge requests can be merged.
|
|
1. When both MRs are ready, the EE merge request will be merged first, and the
|
|
CE-equivalent will be merged next.
|
|
|
|
**Important notes:**
|
|
|
|
- The commit SHA can be easily found from the GitLab UI. From a merge request,
|
|
open the tab **Commits** and click the copy icon to copy the commit SHA.
|
|
- To cherry-pick a **commit range**, such as (A > B > C > D) use:
|
|
|
|
```shell
|
|
git cherry-pick "oldest-commit-SHA^..newest-commit-SHA"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
For example, suppose the commit A is the oldest, and its SHA is `4f5e4018c09ed797fdf446b3752f82e46f5af502`,
|
|
and the commit D is the newest, and its SHA is `80e1c9e56783bd57bd7129828ec20b252ebc0538`.
|
|
The cherry-pick command will be:
|
|
|
|
```shell
|
|
git cherry-pick "4f5e4018c09ed797fdf446b3752f82e46f5af502^..80e1c9e56783bd57bd7129828ec20b252ebc0538"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- To cherry-pick a **merge commit**, use the flag `-m 1`. For example, suppose that the
|
|
merge commit SHA is `138f5e2f20289bb376caffa0303adb0cac859ce1`:
|
|
|
|
```shell
|
|
git cherry-pick -m 1 138f5e2f20289bb376caffa0303adb0cac859ce1
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- To cherry-pick multiple commits, such as B and D in a range (A > B > C > D), use:
|
|
|
|
```shell
|
|
git cherry-pick commit-B-SHA commit-D-SHA
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
For example, suppose commit B SHA = `4f5e4018c09ed797fdf446b3752f82e46f5af502`,
|
|
and the commit D SHA = `80e1c9e56783bd57bd7129828ec20b252ebc0538`.
|
|
The cherry-pick command will be:
|
|
|
|
```shell
|
|
git cherry-pick 4f5e4018c09ed797fdf446b3752f82e46f5af502 80e1c9e56783bd57bd7129828ec20b252ebc0538
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This case is particularly useful when you have a merge commit in a sequence of
|
|
commits and you want to cherry-pick all but the merge commit.
|
|
|
|
- If you push more commits to the CE branch, you can safely repeat the procedure
|
|
to cherry-pick them to the EE-equivalent branch. You can do that as many times as
|
|
necessary, using the same CE and EE branches.
|
|
- If you submitted the merge request to the CE repo and the `ee-compat-check` job passed,
|
|
you are not required to submit the EE-equivalent MR, but it's still recommended. If the
|
|
job failed, you are required to submit the EE MR so that you can fix the conflicts in EE
|
|
before merging your changes into CE.
|
|
|
|
## How we run the Automatic CE->EE merge at GitLab
|
|
|
|
At GitLab, we use the [Merge Train](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/merge-train)
|
|
project to keep our [GitLab EE](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab)
|
|
repository updated with commits from
|
|
[GitLab CE](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss).
|
|
|
|
We have a mirror of the [Merge Train](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/merge-train)
|
|
project [configured](https://ops.gitlab.net/gitlab-org/merge-train) to run an
|
|
automatic CE->EE merge job every twenty minutes as a scheduled CI job. The
|
|
[configured](https://ops.gitlab.net/gitlab-org/merge-train) Merge Train project
|
|
is only accessible to authorized GitLab staff.
|
|
|
|
## FAQ
|
|
|
|
### How does automatic merging work?
|
|
|
|
The automatic merging is performed using a project called [Merge
|
|
Train](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/merge-train/). This project will clone CE
|
|
and EE master, and merge CE master into EE master using `git merge
|
|
--strategy=recursive --strategy-option=ours`. This process runs multiple times
|
|
per hour.
|
|
|
|
For more information on the exact implementation you can refer to the source
|
|
code.
|
|
|
|
### Why merge automatically?
|
|
|
|
As we work towards continuous deployments and a single repository for both CE
|
|
and EE, we need to first make sure that all CE changes make their way into EE as
|
|
fast as possible. Past experiences and data have shown that periodic CE to EE
|
|
merge requests do not scale, and often take a very long time to complete. For
|
|
example, [in this
|
|
comment](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release/framework/issues/49#note_114614619)
|
|
we determined that the average time to close an upstream merge request is around
|
|
5 hours, with peaks up to several days. Periodic merge requests are also
|
|
frustrating to work with, because they often include many changes unrelated to
|
|
your own changes.
|
|
|
|
To resolve these problems, we now merge changes using the `ours` strategy to
|
|
automatically resolve merge conflicts. This removes the need for resolving
|
|
conflicts in a periodic merge request, and allows us to merge changes from CE
|
|
into EE much faster.
|
|
|
|
### My CE merge request caused conflicts after it was merged. What do I do?
|
|
|
|
If you notice this, you should set up an EE merge request that resolves these
|
|
conflicts as **soon as possible**. Failing to do so can lead to your changes not
|
|
being available in EE, which may break tests. This in turn would prevent us from
|
|
being able to deploy.
|
|
|
|
### Won't this setup be risky?
|
|
|
|
No, not if there is an EE merge request for every CE merge request that causes
|
|
conflicts _and_ that EE merge request is merged first. In the past we may have
|
|
been a bit more relaxed when it comes to enforcing EE merge requests, but to
|
|
enable automatic merging we have to start requiring such merge requests even for
|
|
the smallest conflicts.
|
|
|
|
### Some files I work with often conflict, how can I best deal with this?
|
|
|
|
If you find you keep running into merge conflicts, consider refactoring the file
|
|
so that the EE specific changes are not intertwined with CE code. For Ruby code
|
|
you can do this by moving the EE code to a separate module, which can then be
|
|
injected into the appropriate classes or modules. See [Guidelines for
|
|
implementing Enterprise Edition features](ee_features.md) for more information.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
[Return to Development documentation](README.md)
|