I thought feature branches, like communism, sounded good but had failed in practice.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Horacio Duran <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> 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
