Am Samstag, 28. März 2015, 02:57:48 schrieb Steve Dougherty: > # Authors squash commits into high-level changes making up final > version; review pull request as commits.
My stance is: Keep the commits if they are clean enough to be reviewed, refactor them mercilessly if that’s necessary to avoid making review a bottleneck. If a new contributor provides 5 commits where three would suffice, but it’s easy to merge (and asking to fix it would take more time than the reviewing takes), just merge them. If it’s a complex change and reviewing it is hard, then require the author of the pull request to make it easy to review by using the commits as second hierarchy. I agree with Bombe that it’s not nice to lose the history, but with git that’s the best we can do. It’s a limitation of the tool. But even though I would love to see Freenet use Mercurial by default (in which this problem can be resolved with the evolve extension¹), I think that it would be hard to change. So we’re stuck with that limitation and have to employ it as efficiently as we can - even if that means compromising the clean history and unchanging hisotry ideology. Best wishes, Arne ¹: The evolve extension of Mercurial has the concepts of hidden changesets with rewrite-markers, so the history which is shown by default is clean, but you can always inquire how it came into being.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
