On second thought, this might be a problem for feature branches but we can device a way to tell the bot that something is a fb
On Thursday, 16 June 2016, Horacio Duran <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on Dave's suggestion > > On Thursday, 16 June 2016, David Cheney <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]> >> 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]> >> 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] >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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
