Ian: I thought the point was to not keep the original commits in tact 100%, but rather to squish and clean them, in a way that keeps attribution.
I think Joe's question (and perhaps yours), is: is that okay to do? A separate question is: how to use the tools to make sure this is obvious. -Michal On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Ian Clelland <[email protected]>wrote: > If you're really concerned about keeping their commits intact, then you can > also do what I did with > https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-file/pull/30 -- > > I added her repo as a remote, and merged with --no-ff back into dev. That > kept all of the original commits intact, any my name goes on the merge > commit. > > (That may have also contributed to the pull request being marked as > 'merged' automagically by GitHub) > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Without --signoff, you already get set as the "committer", while the > > author is maintained. You can verify this by running "coho last-week" and > > see that it separates commits you wrote vs commits that you did from pull > > requests. That said, adding "--signoff" couldn't hurt. > > > > Squishing & fixing up does maintain authorship, so I think that's fine. I > > also sometime clean up whitespace & tabs->spaces. > > > > It's definitely nice to squash & fix the commit messages not just for > > release notes, but so you can figure out what the commit does from the > "git > > log", and so that they can be reverted easily. > > > > I've been doing this for several months now and haven't had anyone > > complain, so I don't think those submitting the PRs care too much. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Does the squash keep original author info? I know the hashes change so > > > they don't match up, but if we have the author and a reference to the > PR > > in > > > the commit, I think thats fine for me. > > > > > > Alternative is to ask the contributor to do the squash, which we do try > > to > > > do, but its usually the non-responsive contributors that submit the > nasty > > > PR in the first place (go figure). > > > > > > -Michal > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey > > > > > > > > I saw the wiki was updated, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about > > this: > > > > https://wiki.apache.org/cordova/ProcessingPullRequests > > > > > > > > # REPO_NAME example: "js" > > > > # PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER example: "44" > > > > curl > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-REPO_NAME/pull/PULL_REQUEST_NUMBER.patch > > > > | git am > > > > git rebase origin/master -i > > > > > > > > First, I'd add git am --signoff so that it adds your git e-mail to > it. > > > > This just looks nice, but I'm not sure how I feel about doing the > > > > commit squishing and pruning, since we want to have a nice audit > trail > > > > back to GitHub to see what we were doing. I know it makes it harder > > > > to do release notes, but the one thing that I get super picky about > is > > > > who wrote what code, and it matching up. > > > > > > > > Am I just being all Apache about this, and we could be way more lax? > > > > What are people's thoughts? > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > >
