Hi Eric,
The downside is that we'll get the git commit history from the
original authors without the ("with xxx") signoff tag, but instead
that's replaced with a merge commit saying "merging GITHUB-123 by
blah", the merge commit has the parents of the original commits and as
long as we fetch the remote into a local branch named after the PR
it's also a lot easier to see which commits' were merged.
https://github.com/apache/libcloud/commit/065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563
I know the GitHub contributor graphs explicitly hide merge commits as well.
I will see if I can script the git-commit amend command with the
signoff flag so in the history we'll also see who signed off the
commits "git commit --amend --signoff"
Anthony
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree that git-am can be a pain.
>
> What I like about using it though, is that history is more forthcoming
> about original author versus us showing up all the time.
>
> """
> commit 065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563
> Merge: 4897933 0d1a9d2
> Author: Anthony Shaw <anthonys...@apache.org>
> Date: Wed Oct 12 09:41:47 2016 +1100
>
> Merge branch 'libcloud-889' into trunk
> Closes #889
> """
>
> Versus an older git-am commit entry,
>
> """
> commit f5ff0cfb080b767b542e9deec5ecc34dedcb4f0c
> Author: Fahri Cihan Demirci <fem...@users.noreply.github.com>
> Date: Sun Oct 9 02:15:10 2016 -0400
>
> LIBCLOUD-858: Fix Listing Libvirt Nodes with Python 3
>
> Closes #894
> """
>
> Plus in the GitHub web UI, you can see original authors more clearly
> [scroll down to look at these same two commits,
> https://github.com/apache/libcloud/commits/trunk]
>
> If there's a way to preserve that, I'm all for stepping away from git-am.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:49 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our PR process (applies to committers but anyone else is welcome to
>> weigh in) says to download the patch file from GitHub and apply the
>> patch using the `git am` command.
>>
>> I find git am to be so fragile, typically I use the --3way flag to
>> help it try and resolve conflicts but normally is just stumbles on the
>> slightest issue.
>>
>> The new process I've been using is :
>>
>> git fetch https://github.com/<remote user>/libcloud
>> <remote-branch>:github-<pr>
>> git merge <github-pr>
>>
>> .. edit merge message to included Closes #PR
>>
>> Then push to apache trunk.
>>
>> An obvious advantage is that in GitHub the PRs show as merged.
>> https://github.com/apache/libcloud/pull/899
>>
>> The merge tool in git (instead of the patch) is so much more reliable.
>>
>> What do people think of this approach? Here is an example -
>> https://github.com/apache/libcloud/commit/065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b140
>> 8437b07563
>>
>> Ant
>>
