There is an option in the repo settings menu to disable or enable merge-commit for PR, see a screenshot below (from a different github project):
[image: image.png] My guess is that this is disabled for the reason to avoid creating non-linear history for standard PRs (as oppose to technical problem). But this is only my guess, it would be great if someone could confirm. Best, Chiyuan On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:50 AM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe so, but if someone wants to confirm it would be great. > Unfortunately, I just came down with a cold/flu so I will be out of > communication for a bit > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:51 PM Marco de Abreu > <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Are we sure that this is due to lacking permissions and not because of > some > > technical limitation? If we are certain, we can ask out mentors to > create a > > ticket with Apache Infra to make that switch. > > > > -Marco > > > > Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018, 01:17: > > > > > I made a test regular merge commit into a copy of master. It seemed to > go > > > fine. Here is a listing of what it will look like for everyone. > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commits/test-merge-julia-import > > > > > > Although, I would be happy to push the merge button. I think the most > > > important thing is to get the PR merged, so whatever way is the best to > > > make that happen, let's do it. > > > > > > So - Does the regular merge seem like a good option? > > > If so, what is the best way to make that happen? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:05 PM Chiyuan Zhang <plus...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Agreed with Pedro. Maybe the merge-commit option from the github > > > interface > > > > was disabled for a reason. But as Pedro said, maybe it is good to > > > > temporarily enable it for this PR and merge using that. > > > > > > > > > > > > - It should be technically easier than rebasing due to the > > > > git-subtree-import issue we are currently having > > > > - It also avoid stacking a huge commit history on *top* of current > > > > history > > > > - The downside is probably the history of the project is not > linear > > > > anymore, but I think this is actually what we would like to have > for > > > > this > > > > particular case, because the contents of the main repo and the > julia > > > > branch > > > > actually does not overlap. So it makes sense to have two tails > with > > > > their > > > > own history. > > > > > > > > Carin: I guess if someone with admin permission on the github could > > > > temporarily enable the merge-commit option, then pushing the button > on > > > the > > > > web might simply work. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Chiyuan > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pedro - Maybe a merge commit is a better answer in this case. I > > > > originally > > > > > ruled it out since it wasn't an option in the github web interface, > > but > > > > > since this looks like it is going to have to be done outside it > > because > > > > of > > > > > the subtrees anyway, it might be a better fit. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:07 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > We are actually running into troubles with using the subtree and > > the > > > > > > rebase. Since it looks like this is not going to be a simple, > > "click > > > > the > > > > > > button" through the web page merge, I rather hand this task off > to > > > > > someone > > > > > > with more context in making sure it gets in there correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chiyuan or any others, would you be willing to take this over? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Carin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:00 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Should we try to first being into a branch and then try merge > that > > > > > >> branch? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Sep 28, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Pedro Larroy < > > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I'm not familiar with the specifics of this contribution, as a > > > > general > > > > > >> > approach my understanding is that if the list of commits is > big > > > and > > > > > you > > > > > >> > want to preserve history, usually merging is better so you > keep > > > > > history > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > causality, if you rebase all the commits on top of master you > > are > > > > > >> changing > > > > > >> > the history of these commits which can't be individually > > reverted > > > as > > > > > >> some > > > > > >> > have suggested before. Maybe is because I come from a > mercurial > > > > > >> background, > > > > > >> > but my initial impression would be either to: > > > > > >> > 1. squash everything and rebase > > > > > >> > 2. or merge without rebasing or squashing. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Pedro. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM Carin Meier < > > > carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks everyone for the input. I'll try to summarize the > > feedback > > > > > from > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> >> responses: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Using Squash-Merge is the project standard for very good > > reasons. > > > > > >> However, > > > > > >> >> in the case of this PR to bring in the Julia language from > its > > > > > sibling > > > > > >> >> repo, we want to preserve all the individual commits of the > > many > > > > > >> >> contributors that have worked over multiple years to make > this > > a > > > > > great > > > > > >> >> language binding. We will use Rebase-Merge for it. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Chiyuan - thanks for the suggestion of using a tag. I think > we > > > can > > > > > try > > > > > >> it > > > > > >> >> initially without it since there are other ways to browse the > > > > commit > > > > > >> >> history, like looking at the PRs. But, we can add the tag > > > > > >> retroactively if > > > > > >> >> people start having trouble. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> If there no objections, I will merge the PR using the above > > > method > > > > in > > > > > >> my > > > > > >> >> morning (EST). > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks everyone! I'm looking forward to having the Julia > > > community > > > > > >> join the > > > > > >> >> main repo and increasing our collaboration with them. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Best, > > > > > >> >> Carin > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:37 PM Chiyuan Zhang < > > > plus...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> +1 for rebase and merge. As a workaround for the > > aforementioned > > > > > issue, > > > > > >> >>> maybe we can create a tag for the commit before the merge, > so > > > that > > > > > in > > > > > >> >> case > > > > > >> >>> people want to browse the recent main-repo commits by > skipping > > > > this > > > > > >> big > > > > > >> >>> chunk of rebased commits, there is a pointer to take his or > > her > > > > hand > > > > > >> on. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Best, > > > > > >> >>> Chiyuan > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:34 AM Jason Dai < > > jason....@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> +1 to rebase and merge to preserve and track the > > contributions. > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Thanks, > > > > > >> >>>> -Jason > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:27 PM Aaron Markham < > > > > > >> >>> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>>> +1 to rebase and merge to retain the efforts of all of the > > > > > >> >>> contributors. > > > > > >> >>>> If > > > > > >> >>>>> there's some git maintenance that can trim it down from > 700+ > > > > > commits > > > > > >> >>> then > > > > > >> >>>>> maybe that's a compromise. > > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 21:23 Naveen Swamy < > > mnnav...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> this PR comes from more than 1 individual, if we squash > > merge > > > > > we'll > > > > > >> >>> not > > > > > >> >>>>> be > > > > > >> >>>>>> able to attribute the contribution of those individuals. > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> +1 to rebase merge to preserve history > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Tianqi Chen < > > > > > >> >>>> tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> One of the main reason for a rebase merge is that it > > > preserves > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > >> >>>>> commit > > > > > >> >>>>>>> history of the MXNet.jl package contributors, and given > > that > > > > the > > > > > >> >>>>> project > > > > > >> >>>>>>> has been evolved since 2015 and has always been a > > > high-quality > > > > > >> >>>> language > > > > > >> >>>>>>> module for MXNet. > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I think we should take an exception here to preserve the > > > > commit > > > > > >> >>>> history > > > > > >> >>>>>> of > > > > > >> >>>>>>> each individual contributors to the Julia binding and > > > welcome > > > > > >> >> them > > > > > >> >>> to > > > > > >> >>>>> the > > > > > >> >>>>>>> community. > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Tianqi > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:55 PM Tianqi Chen < > > > > > >> >>>> tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> In this particular case, I would suggest rebase and > > merge. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> The main reasoning is that the commit log of the Julia > > > > binding > > > > > >> >> is > > > > > >> >>>> not > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> simple WIP commits, every commit there has been done > > > through > > > > > >> >>>>> testcases > > > > > >> >>>>>>> and > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> it is important for us to respect the developer of the > > > > effort. > > > > > >> >> It > > > > > >> >>>> is > > > > > >> >>>>>> also > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> good to trace back the history of the commits more > > easily. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Tianqi > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Tianqi > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:34 PM Carin Meier < > > > > > >> >>> carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Chiyuan, > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the prompt to find some clarity of the pros > > and > > > > > >> >> cons > > > > > >> >>> of > > > > > >> >>>>>>> each. I > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> think that will help drive us to the right decision. I > > > think > > > > > >> >>> some > > > > > >> >>>> of > > > > > >> >>>>>>> those > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> reasons are the ones you listed. I will take a stab > > below > > > at > > > > > >> >>>>> outlining > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> what > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> I see. Feel free to chime in if I missed any. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> *Squash and Merge* > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> *Pros* - It is the project standard > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> - It will provide one commit for the feature > > and > > > > > >> >>> lessen > > > > > >> >>>>> the > > > > > >> >>>>>>> need > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> for 700+ commits rebased on top of master. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> - It is easier for a user to do git log to > > browse > > > > > >> >>> commits > > > > > >> >>>>> and > > > > > >> >>>>>>> see > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> what was features were added. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> *Cons* - I don't know how github would handle > squashing > > > all > > > > > >> >>>> those > > > > > >> >>>>>>> commit > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> messages into one. Will it be too much? > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> - You lose the granularity of the features > > > > > >> >>> individual > > > > > >> >>>>>>> commits > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> *Rebase and Merge* > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> * Pros *- You don't have a huge commit message with > one > > > > > >> >> commit > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> - You do have the granularity of the > > individual > > > > > >> >>>> features > > > > > >> >>>>> of > > > > > >> >>>>>>> the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> commit > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> * Cons *- It is not the project standard > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> - You have 700+ commits on top of master > that > > > > might > > > > > >> >>> be > > > > > >> >>>>>> harder > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> see the ones that went in right before. (like someone > > > > browsing > > > > > >> >>>>>> commits) > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:12 PM Chiyuan Zhang < > > > > > >> >>> plus...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Carin, > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Can you clarify the pros and cons of the two > > approaches? > > > Is > > > > > >> >>> the > > > > > >> >>>>> main > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> concern here about logistics (e.g. preserving the > > history > > > > of > > > > > >> >>> the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> original > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> repo and developments) or technical issue (e.g. using > > > > squash > > > > > >> >>>> might > > > > > >> >>>>>> end > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> up > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> with a huuuuge commit message that might be difficult > > or > > > > > >> >> hard > > > > > >> >>> to > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> handle)? > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I think it might not be very likely that someone is > > going > > > > to > > > > > >> >>>>> cherry > > > > > >> >>>>>>> pick > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> revert some of the commits. But preserving the commit > > > > > >> >> history > > > > > >> >>> is > > > > > >> >>>>>> still > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> useful in case one need to trace the change or bisect > > for > > > > > >> >> some > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> regression > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> bugs, etc. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Just to provide some context: the PR actually > contains > > > 700+ > > > > > >> >>>>> commits, > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> and it > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> dates back to 2015. The development of the Julia > > binding > > > > > >> >>> started > > > > > >> >>>>> in > > > > > >> >>>>>>> the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> early stage of MXNet. We started with a separate repo > > due > > > > to > > > > > >> >>> the > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> requirement of the package system of julia. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Chiyuan > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:41 PM Carin Meier < > > > > > >> >>>> carinme...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> The Import Julia binding PR ,( > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10149 > > ), > > > is > > > > > >> >>>>> getting > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> very > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> close to being merged. Because of the large number > of > > > > > >> >>> commits > > > > > >> >>>>>> there > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> was a > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> suggestion not to use the usual "Squash and Merge". > > The > > > > > >> >>> only > > > > > >> >>>>>> option > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> would > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> be "Rebase and Merge" since merging with a merge > > commit > > > is > > > > > >> >>> not > > > > > >> >>>>>>> enabled > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> for > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the project. > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> *Squash and Merge* - The commits from this branch > will > > > be > > > > > >> >>>>> combined > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> into > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> one > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> commit in the base branch (With all the commit > > messages > > > > > >> >>>>> combined) > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> *Rebase and Merge* - The commits from this branch > will > > > be > > > > > >> >>>>> rebased > > > > > >> >>>>>>> and > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> added > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> to the base branch > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> The PR is over 250+ commits (Github won't show all > of > > > > > >> >> them) > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts about how we should handle the merge? > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Carin > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
