Let’s update the checklist to match the outcome of this thread: https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md <https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md>
Anthony > On May 31, 2019, at 1:31 PM, Helena Bales <hba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > +1. I would guess that it is the checklist as part of the PR that is > confusing people. > > The other reason that history gets rewritten is when force pushing after a > rebase. While fast-forwarding is necessary on occasion, this can be > accomplished without rewriting history by using a merge. > > As part of our document on making PRs, we should include instructions on > how to handle the situation where fast-forwarding is necessary, explicitly > discourage the use of merges and force-pushes once a PR has been opened, > and some guidelines regarding the appropriate number of commits when the PR > is initially opened. Once we have these guidelines, it would be helpful to > link to them from the PR checklist that we currently have, and rework the > checklist so that it is in line with our desired process. > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:20 PM Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> Something I have noticed is that often when I have requested changes be >> made to a pull request is that the changes are force pushed ask a single >> commit to the pr. I would actually prefer that the changes show up as a new >> commit on the pr instead of everything being rebased into one commit. That >> makes the history of the pr easier to follow and make it easy to see what >> has changed since the previous review. What do others think? Have we done >> something that makes contributors think the pull request has to be single >> commit? I know the initial pull request is supposed to be but from then on >> I'd prefer that we wait to squash when we merge it to develop. >>
