+1, this is certainly useful.
Thank you,
Dinesh
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:04 PM Akira Ajisaka <aajis...@apache.org> wrote:
> Makes sense, +1
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01 AM Sangjin Lee <sj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1. Sounds good to me.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:20 AM Iñigo Goiri <elgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:17 AM Steve Loughran
> <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for squash and merge, with whoever does the merge adding the full
> > > commit
> > > > message for the logs, with JIRA, contributor(s) etc
> > > >
> > > > One limit of the github process is that the author of the commit
> becomes
> > > > whoever hit the squash button, not whoever did the code, so it loses
> the
> > > > credit they are due. This is why I'm doing local merges (With some
> help
> > > > from smart-apply-patch). I think I'll have to explore
> smart-apply-patch
> > > to
> > > > see if I can do even more with it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:07 AM Elek, Marton <e...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Github UI (ui!) helps to merge Pull Requests to the proposed
> branch.
> > > > > There are three different ways to do it [1]:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Keep all the different commits from the PR branch and create one
> > > > > additional merge commit ("Create a merge commit")
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Squash all the commits and commit the change as one patch
> ("Squash
> > > > > and merge")
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Keep all the different commits from the PR branch but rebase,
> merge
> > > > > commit will be missing ("Rebase and merge")
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As only the option 2 is compatible with the existing development
> > > > > practices of Hadoop (1 issue = 1 patch = 1 commit), I call for a
> lazy
> > > > > consensus vote: If no objections withing 3 days, I will ask INFRA
> to
> > > > > disable the options 1 and 3 to make the process less error prone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know, what do you think,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks a lot
> > > > > Marton
> > > > >
> > > > > ps: Personally I prefer to merge from local as it enables to sign
> the
> > > > > commits and do a final build before push. But this is a different
> > > story,
> > > > > this proposal is only about removing the options which are
> obviously
> > > > > risky...
> > > > >
> > > > > ps2: You can always do any kind of merge / commits from CLI, for
> > > example
> > > > > to merge a feature branch together with keeping the history.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://help.github.com/en/articles/merging-a-pull-request#merging-a-pull-request-on-github
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
