ok. Now I'm curious why you have to do an interactive rebase in the
first place? That tool is kinda playing with fire unless you're
working off a feature branch

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Eric Johnson
<erjoh...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> No, on rebase, your commit just disappeared!
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:41 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "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
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

Reply via email to