I should mention that by default the squashed commit wraps the whole history up into the commit message. Also, my original comment was more of a question, as I know this topic has already been thoroughly discussed but I didn't remember what we were supposed to be doing. On Mar 15, 2014 7:41 AM, "Marcus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, I've been down that road before and its not always fun. > On Mar 15, 2014 4:49 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think preserving the history is important. Especially for the developer >> to understand the history if it and why he did it this way. >> >> branch merges can also be easily reverted if required. >> http://git-scm.com/blog/2010/03/02/undoing-merges.html >> >> https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt >> >> >> ~Rajani >> >> >> >> On 14-Mar-2014, at 11:50 pm, Chiradeep Vittal < >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> For a new feature, I'd agree that squashed-merge is better. >> >> From: Marcus <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]>> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] >> ><mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Friday, March 14, 2014 at 10:05 AM >> To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [Merge] CloudStack IAM branch to master >> >> Maybe, although to some extent the action of merging I think should be >> seen as saying "this is complete". If the history is important, it >> could perhaps be kept around in the feature branch until it becomes >> irrelevant. Of course it may have minor issues that aren't known, but >> I think the ability to preserve master and easily be able to roll back >> an entire feature is attractive. >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Prachi Damle <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Just a thought about the squashed merge, if there are multiple developers >> working on a feature branch as in this case, won't it be better to preserve >> the change history? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Min Chen [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:35 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Merge] CloudStack IAM branch to master >> >> Thanks Marcus. I am not aware of this convention, will remember that next >> time when I do the merge. >> >> -min >> >> On 3/13/14 10:30 PM, "Marcus" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Min, in looking at this branch merge, I need to be reminded whether we >> are supposed to squash feature branches when they come in, or preserve >> history. It's nice to preserve history, but it's a lot easier to undo a >> squashed merge. >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Min Chen <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> IAM branch is now merged to master. >> >> Thanks >> -min >> >> On 3/13/14 10:13 AM, "Min Chen" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Since we haven't heard of any objections to this merge for 3 days, I >> am going to merge it to master today. >> >> Thanks >> -min >> >> On 3/11/14 12:23 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 11 mrt. 2014, at 19:52, Min Chen <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Also, have already run FingBugs on our branch and addressed all >> new findings introduced by our branch. >> >> Awesome! :-) >> >> >> Thanks. >> -min >> >> On 3/10/14 7:33 PM, "Min Chen" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> No new jar dependencies. >> >> -min >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:22 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Any new jar dependencies? >> >> On 3/10/14, 11:34 AM, "Min Chen" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Prachi and I would like to merge CloudStack Identity and Access >> Management(IAM) plugin services to the master branch. >> Development for this effort has been done by Prachi and me on >> ACS rbac branch >> >> >> (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shor >> tlo >> g; >> h >> =r >> ef >> s/heads/rbac). >> Checklists for the merge: >> 1. JIRA ticket: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5920. >> 2. Functional Specs: >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStac >> k+I >> de >> n >> ti >> ty >> +and+Access+Management+%28IAM%29+Plugin. We have proposed this >> feature >> back in Jan, and accommodated all the feedbacks in our >> implementation. >> 3. Unit tests for the feature are available at: >> services/iam/server/test >> (for iam server) and services/iam/plugin/test (for iam plugin). >> 4. Marvin integration tests for the feature are available at: >> test/integration/smoke/test_vm_iam.py. >> 5. Branch has been rebased with master branch up to commit >> 63e3eea7905e22cab9466b28a2ab2a80b586aeed. >> 6. RAT test has been passed. >> >> Thanks. >> -min >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
