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
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to