Hi Ted

You must mean these merges. Correct me if not.
-
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/commit/eede2806e96d07ea2c99493f350508741e3f31ec
-
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/commit/d6e4a70dbef7975f28cf09efd1be86541d363431
-
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/commit/6b5eec91c0f31d6b7ad30b2a390cfd6327eb42e3
-
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/commit/43cf0a4953dcbe9a867765c105b35917fc5a1770
-
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/commit/23bb56302ab01070d8a63f3fd8cbe3655faaaace

These are my doing to merge below 3 pull requests from the public. They are
all pretty small by the way.
- https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/pull/2          (3 lines doc
change)
- https://github.com/KylinOLAP/Kylin/pull/452                (KYLIN-657
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KYLIN-657>)
- https://github.com/KylinOLAP/Kylin/pull/451                (KYLIN-657
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KYLIN-657>)

I thought GIT would automatically make clear of the original author and me
the reviewer, since it's merged from pull request. Apparently the result is
confusing..

Kindly educate on how these pull requests should be processed in line with
Apache standard. What I can think of is
- Create JIRA for each pull request, copy the discussion from pull request
there.
- Link the JIRA, the original author and reviewer in the commit comment.

Suggestion?  Or is there a good example I can look at?

Thanks
Yang


On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am still seeing large merged commits going into the Kylin source.  This
> is a serious problem on several grounds:
>
> 1) the source of these commits is obscured by the bulk nature of the
> commits.  The source needs to be identified down to the person who wrote
> the code so that the project can be sure that all contributions were
> licensed correctly.
>
> 2) the JIRA's that these commits are associated with is not recorded.  This
> is important because the community needs a record of what code was written
> for what purpose.
>
> 3) the community is not apparently being involved in reviewing these
> commits.  That raises all kinds of flags about development proceeding off
> the mailing list.
>
> These concerns are very serious relative to the Apache standards for
> projects.
>

Reply via email to