(a) -0 due to extra noise in the commit log (b) -1 (as standard/default) this should be done by contributor as there may be few situation where individual commits should be preserved (c) +1 the rebase will also record the committer (which would be merge commit author otherwise)
In general the process should result in "merged" status for a merged PR as opposed to "closed" as seen often currently. Thanks, Thomas On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Raghu Angadi <rang...@google.com> wrote: > >> -1 for (a): no need to see all the private branch commits from >> contributor. It often makes me more conscious of local commits. >> > > I want to note that on my PRs these are not private commits. Each one is a > meaningful isolated change that can be rolled back and is useful to keep > separate when looking at `git blame` or the history of a file. I would > encourage every contributor to also do this. A PR is the unit of code > review, but the unit of meaningful change to a repository is often much > smaller. > > Kenn > > >> +1 for (b): with committer replacing the squashed commit messages with >> '[BEAM-jira or PRID]: Brief cut-n-paste (or longer if it contributor >> provided one)'. >> -1 for (c): This is quite painful for contributors to work with if there >> has been merge conflict with master. Especially for larger PRs with >> multiple updates. >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Is it possible for mergebot to auto squash any fixup! and perform the >>> merge commit as described in (a), if so then I would vote for mergebot. >>> >>> Without mergebot, I vote: >>> (a) 0 I like squashing fixup! >>> (b) -1 >>> (c) +1 Most of our PRs are for focused singular changes which is why I >>> would rather squash everything over not squashing anything >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Ben Chambers <bchamb...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One risk to "squash and merge" is that it may lead to commits that >>>>> don't have clean descriptions -- for instance, commits like "Fixing review >>>>> comments" will show up. If we use (a) these would also show up as separate >>>>> commits. It seems like there are two cases of multiple commits in a PR: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Multiple commits in a PR that have semantic meaning (eg., a PR >>>>> performed N steps, split across N commits). In this case, keeping the >>>>> descriptions and performing either a merge (if the commits are separately >>>>> valid) or squash (if we want the commits to become a single commit in >>>>> master) probably makes sense. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Keep 'em >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2. Multiple commits in a PR that just reflect the review history. In >>>>> this case, we should probably ask the PR author to explicitly rebase their >>>>> PR to have semantically meaningful commits prior to merging. (Eg., do a >>>>> rebase -i). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ask the author to squash 'em. >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:46 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> James brought up a great question in Slack, which was how should we >>>>>> use the merge button, illustrated [1] >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to broaden the discussion to talk about all the new >>>>>> capabilities: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Whether & how to use the "reviewer" field >>>>>> 2. Whether & how to use the "assignee" field >>>>>> 3. Whether & how to use the merge button >>>>>> >>>>>> My preferences are: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Use the reviewer field instead of "R:" comments. >>>>>> 2. Use the assignee field to keep track of who the review is blocked >>>>>> on (either the reviewer for more comments or the author for fixes) >>>>>> 3. Use merge commits, but editing the commit subject line >>>>>> >>>>>> To expand on part 3, GitHub's merge button has three options [1]. >>>>>> They are not described accurately in the UI, as they all say "merge" when >>>>>> only one of them performs a merge. They do the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) Merge the branch with a merge commit >>>>>> (b) Squash all the commits, rebase and push >>>>>> (c) Rebase and push without squash >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlike our current guide, all of these result in a "merged" status >>>>>> for the PR, so we can correctly distinguish those PRs that were actually >>>>>> merged. >>>>>> >>>>>> My votes on these options are: >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) +1 this preserves the most information >>>>>> (b) -1 this erases the most information >>>>>> (c) -0 this is just sort of a middle ground; it breaks commit hashes, >>>>>> does not have a clear merge commit, but preserves other info >>>>>> >>>>>> Kenn >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://apachebeam.slack.com/messages/C1AAFJYMP/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kenn >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
