+1 on Dave's suggestion On Thursday, 16 June 2016, David Cheney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Counter suggestion: the bot refuses to accept PR's that contain more > than one commit, then it's up to the submitter to prepare it in any > way that they feel appropriate. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:44 PM, roger peppe <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Squashed commits are nice, but there's something worth watching > > out for: currently the merge commit is committed with the text > > that's in the github PR, but when a squashed commit is made, this > > text is ignored and only the text in the actual proposed commit ends up > > in the history. This surprised me (I often edit the PR description > > as the review continues) so worth being aware of, I think. > > > > cheers, > > rog. > > > > On 16 June 2016 at 02:12, Menno Smits <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Following on from the recent thread about commit squashing and commit > >> message quality, the idea of automatically squashing commit at merge > time > >> has been raised. The idea is that the merge bot would automatically > squash > >> commits for a pull request into a single commit, using the PR > description as > >> the commit message. > >> > >> With this in place, developers can commit locally using any approach > they > >> prefer. The smaller commits they make as they work won't be part of the > >> history the team interacts with in master. > >> > >> When using autosquashing the quality of pull request descriptions > should get > >> even more scrutiny during reviews. The quality of PR descriptions is > already > >> important as they are used for merge commits but with autosquashing in > place > >> they will be the *only* commit message. > >> > >> Autosquashing can be achieved technically by either having the merge > bot do > >> the squashing itself, or by taking advantage of Github's feature to do > this > >> (currently in preview mode): > >> > >> https://developer.github.com/changes/2016-04-01-squash-api-preview/ > >> > >> We need to ensure that the squashed commits are attributed to the > correct > >> author (i.e. not jujubot). I'm not sure what we do with pull requests > which > >> contain work from multiple authors. There doesn't seem to be an > established > >> approach for this. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> - Menno > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Juju-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >> > > > > -- > > Juju-dev mailing list > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
