Hi all, It has already been discussed partially but I would like that we agree on the commit granularity that we want in our history. Some features were squashed to only one commit which seems a bit too granular to me for a big feature. On the contrary I see PRs with very small commits such as "apply spotless" or "fix checkstyle".
IMHO I think a good commit size is an isolable portion of a feature such as for ex "implement Read part of Kudu IO" or "reduce concurrency in Test A". Such a granularity allows to isolate problems easily (git bisect for ex) and rollback only a part if necessary. WDYT about: - squashing non meaningful commits such as "apply review comments" (and rather state what they do and group them if needed), or "apply spotless" or "fix checkstyle" - trying to stick to a commit size as described above => and of course update the contribution guide at the end ? Best Etienne
