Just a creature of habit and that was how I learned to squash. On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
