"hard time merging"? let me guess, "patch does not apply"? This is my favourite error, so much so it's like a close family member.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> wrote: > Yup, I kicked the can down the road. My next merge for #901 had the same > issue. > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Not sure if this related, but I had a hard time merging #856 in this >> morning. I was following my normal procedure using git-am, updating >> CHANGES.rst, then rebasing to squash into a single commit. Prior to rebase, >> I'd see 065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563 in my git-log. During >> rebase -i, I wouldn't see that commit in the list and if I proceeded with >> my squash, that commit would get dropped. >> >> So, I either made the problem worse by not rebasing and pushing two >> commits (one for #856 and one for updating changes), or I just kicked the >> can down the road. But maybe it'll be "fixed" for next committer? >> >> My git-foo isn't super strong and I'd welcome insight into how I could've >> cleaned it up with git commands. >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Tomaz Muraus <to...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I personally used all in the past (am, merge, apply-patch), depending on >>> the scenario of which one was easier to work with / apply (I a lot of >>> times >>> I also need to check out the original branch and do some merge foo so I >>> can >>> merge it cleanly into trunk). >>> >>> I do prefer am since it doesn't result in a merge commit which makes the >>> history look slightly nicer. >>> >>> Having said that, I'm fine with whatever approach is the easier to manage >>> for the person applying the patch as long as it meets this criteria: >>> >>> - Preserve original commit author (preserve original commits as the are) >>> - Commit(s) are signed off by the person applying the changes >>> - We can easily add "Closed #PRNUMBER" or similar message to the commit(s) >>> message >>> >>> Another option also is to try "git merge --no-commit" / "git merge >>> --squash", but we need to be careful with those so we don't rewrite >>> history >>> (apache git repo actually doesn't allow pushing that, but it can still be >>> annoying). >>> >>> 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/065d1919d8cd1e651b >>> 92af6220b140 >>> > 8437b07563 >>> > >>> > Ant >>> > >>> >> >>
