A big reason I ask for squash commits is that it makes things much easier once we have to maintain multiple release trains. It's just easier to get in the habit now while we're small.
It's similar to the issue of making sure each issue has a jira reference in it. When I need to ask the question "is this issue fixed in release X" it's way way easier if I can know that when I see a commit with the jira, that commit represents things are done rather than an incremental step. Generally I use the short hand "one commit, one jira" for the combination of making sure every commit references a jira and each jira can be seen as fixed by a commit. Taking this to the extreme of only allowing one commit likely isn't wise. I've been on a few projects that will go for addendums for a short window (say 24 hours) so long as they call out e.g. "NIFI-XXX ADDENDUM forgot to use git-add while resolving a conflict." The thinking is that the addendum will likely be close in the history, will be uncommon, and if the issue is backported afterwards to some other branch it can be squished. One related thing I saw recently was someone referenced the wrong jira in their commit (or forgot the jira all together). It's unfortunate, but the best option for this I've seen was on HBase: just revert the commit and commit one with the correct information. Long term is eases more headaches then e.g. relying on a note in the jiras or something like that. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > Yeah I was wondering about that too. I suspect it is to make the > visual code review of the PR easier to digest. > > We can document it on the Github/PR language but we also need to > produce a nice contribution guide that helps folks whether they're > coming from Github, are in the PPMC, and so on. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Dan Bress <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 on all this stuff. > > > > As a side note, I noticed on a PR Busbey suggesting that people squash > their commits before submitting a PR. I know I haven't been doing this, > and wouldn't mind hearing some pros/cons to doing this. Whatever we > decide, can we include some language in the git hub / pull request section > that describes the suggested approach. > > > > Dan Bress > > Software Engineer > > ONYX Consulting Services > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Mark Payne <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:22 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Consistency with Git > > > > I vote +1 for these suggestions. I typically name feature branches after > the feature, rather than the ticket. But I can see the advantage to having > the ticket name in there as well. I like the suggestion to include both. > > > > > > For release branches, I think this will help a lot. I’ve created and > destroyed several release branches trying to get this release done. Having > the common parent would ensure isolation from develop but still allow me to > easily destroy the branch rather than doing a release:rollback and hoping > that all works well. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Joe Witt > > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 9:57 AM > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > It's been a few months and we started out with some ideas on how to do > > things and each of us interpreted that slightly differently. That > > will continue to be true but we should document these things and keep > > getting better and more consistent. One area to consider then is the > > usage of Git and our adherence to the Gitflow [1] workflow as we had > > discussed. > > > > In my opinion there is little call for us to deal with maintenance > > branches. So here i am just talking about 'feature branches' and > > 'release branches'. What I'd propose is that we use what we've > > learned and provide some better guidance on how to name the branches > > and the life-cycle of them. > > > > For 'feature branches': > > > > - Recommend naming them 'NIFI-XYZ[-description]' The [-description] > > would be optional. But for example this means the 'ListHDFS' branch > > we have would have been NIFI-553-ListHDFS. > > > > - This naming scheme helps people to know precisely which branch that > > is about and it also promotes cohesive feature branches (that are > > about a particular JIRA). > > > > - Once the feature is complete and has been reviewed it can then be > > merged into develop > > > > - It isn't clear to me when it is the right time to clean up these > > branches. In my mind it seems like once the feature branch has been > > merged to develop and part of a release then the feature branch can be > > removed. It isn't necessary for Git itself to do this but seems like > > good housekeeping. > > > > For 'release branches' > > > > - Recommend naming them 'release-nifi-X.Y.Z'. > > > > - This release branch would live on forever. When generating an RC it > > should branch from that release branch. This way as RC's may come and > > go we're not polluting the commit history. > > > > - Once a given RC is accepted it can be merged back to the release > > branch, master, and develop > > > > - This extra sub-branch for the RC sounds a bit like overkill. But it > > exists to ensure that we do not pollute the commit history of the > > release and beyond but also to ensure the community can keep > > progressing with the develop branch. > > > > - If for any reason we had to do an emergency type patch to a release > > or whatnot we could do so with this branch and/or we can use the tag > > which gets generated during the release process. > > > > There needs to be more discussion around the entire lifecycle of > > contribution of code that considers all roles of the community > > including those submitting PRs from Github. But this initial note is > > just to get some consistency and open up for discussion. > > > > [1] > https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow > > > > > > Thanks > > Joe > -- Sean
