+1 from me. Thanks for the cleanup, Denes! Mike
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > This looks correct to me. > > Ralph > > > On Jan 26, 2018, at 8:45 AM, Denes Arvay <de...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Flume Community, > > > > I have squashed the previously mentioned commits on my fork, I'd be happy > > if you could have a look on it: > > https://github.com/adenes/flume/commits/squashed-log4j-upgrade > > > > I have compared the source files with the current trunk (commit: > ffc5554), > > found no difference. > > I also compiled trunk and my branch and compared the class files, the > only > > difference was the > > auto-generated ./flume-ng-core/target/classes/org/apache/flume/ > package-info.class > > file, which contains the branch name, commit hash, etc. > > > > This is the new commit > > https://github.com/adenes/flume/commit/69c66efefdcd74904986f2727bdf0d > 52dd9a75e5 > > which > > was created by squashing the following commits: > > > > fbc7a68 Merge branch 'trunk' into flume-2050 > > 6813d9c Upgrade to Log4j 2.10.0 > > e4fd6ab Remove more references to log4j 1 > > 6b6605c Update configuration to match log4j 1.x > > 4bb5e88 FLUME-2050 - modify pattern layout so NDC is ignored if it has no > > data > > 4a07fbf FLUME-2050 remove spurious files > > 140ea5d FLUME-2050 Upgrade to Log4j 2 > > > > If there are no objections I'll force push this to the trunk. > > (Note: it might mess up the git-wip-us.apache.org -> github repo > mirroring, > > if that happens I'll get in touch with Apache Infra to sort it out) > > > > Regards, > > Denes > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:00 AM Mike Percy <mpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I agree squash-before-push is a good policy to maintain a readable > commit > >> history. > >> > >> I'd be +1 to doc this and squash the relevant commits. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Denes Arvay <de...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Hari, > >>> > >>> Thank you for your answer. > >>> I think having one single commit with a structured commit message > >> belonging > >>> to one Jira ticket has several benefits: > >>> - it makes it easier to cherry-pick/backport fixes to release branches > >>> - simplifies the commit history and avoids having different ways for > >>> different committers to merge the changes > >>> - makes it possible to give credit to the authors and reviewers > >>> > >>> So I suggest to keep the squash-before-pushing policy but I'm open for > >> more > >>> inputs, recommendations as well. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Denes > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:55 PM Hari Shreedharan < > >> hshreedha...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I don't have any objections to that, but I have to wonder if it makes > >>> sense > >>>> to update the guidelines to actually not have to squash commits. I > >> think > >>>> the reason we needed to squash those commits was that we were > >> originally > >>> on > >>>> SVN and having multiple commits didn't make much sense in SVN. It is > >> easy > >>>> to track history with a single commit, but that looks to be the case > >>> anyway > >>>> (I just see 1 merge commit, which is fine - it is an artifact of pull > >>>> request merges). > >>>> > >>>> That said, I don't have an objection to force-pushing, we just need to > >>> make > >>>> sure no history is lost. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:03 AM, Denes Arvay <de...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Flume Community, > >>>>> > >>>>> A couple of commits went in to trunk recently which weren't in line > >>> with > >>>>> our commit guidelines. > >>>>> I suggest to squash these commits to one and do a force push to > >> resolve > >>>>> this issue, plus - as the guidelines are not clear enough - I'd like > >> to > >>>>> extend the > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/flume/blob/trunk/dev-docs/HowToCommit.md > >> doc > >>>> to > >>>>> be more concrete on the requirements for a commit. These rules are > >>>>> currently mostly unwritten, so it'd be useful to clarify them. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm happy to do these if there is no objection from the community. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Denes > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
