For the last few years, there's been a notion that we should squash PRs down to a single commit before merging. Squashing can give a cleaner commit history, and avoid overrepresentation of minor work given silly commit count metrics used by Github and others. I'm not sure if there are other motivations.
Recently I've seen several contributors amending commits and force-pushing changes. I find this disruptive to the reviewing process in a number of ways (links are broken; what's changed is hard to discern, when it could have been indicated in a commit message and diff; etc.). I have had to ask these several users to cease and desist. I also find that performing the squash can be unnecessary overhead either for the merger or the PR developer. I think squashing is more trouble than it's worth, except where: * there are embarrassingly many minor commits in a PR * squashing first makes a rebase easier because of concurrent changes to the codebase * otherwise for cosmetic reasons only when there is low reviewing activity on the PR While squashing is far from the slowest part of our review process, being able to hit the merge button and move on would be great. Do others agree that a culture of amending commits in the ordinary case is counterproductive? (And apologies for wasting your time on such a silly issue, but I'm sick of clicking links in emails to find the commit's disappeared.)
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
