Hi Paris, It is intended. Usually the git history of a PR is quite messy and reflects the local process of development, so we rewrite the history of the PR to contain a single commit linked to the JIRA issue that it is solving. This creates a clear logical flow of improvements to the project. Reverting a single PR/patch/Jira becomes much easier. Also understanding difference between releases becomes easier. The downside, as you pointed out, is that we lose authorship information. We try to remedy to that by including the name of the original contributor in the log of the commit.
We don't directly use the commit history to keep track of contributors/development, so it doesn't matter that much to us right now. Given that we are just starting out, I am curious to hear about your and Flink's experience with the process. Do you have a strong motivation to keep the history of the PR as is? How do you deal with the history of the project at large? Cheres, -- Gianmarco On 5 June 2015 at 12:13, Paris Carbone <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello again Samoers! > > > I was just wondering whether there is a reason you do not preserve the git > history/authors when merging in the apache repo. Is it intended or a > technical issue? > > From a first look in the commit history someone could guess that there are > only 2-3 contributors in the whole project. > > > cheers > > Paris? > >
