On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Joachim Durchholz <j...@durchholz.org> wrote:
> Am 14.07.2015 um 16:39 schrieb Jason Moore:
>>
>> It wasn't ignored, I just don't see it. All I see are detailed agreements
>> or counters to each point that has been mentioned to be negative about
>> rebasing.
>
>
> Indeed, I misrepresented that a bit.
> I can't hope to discuss solution details if we don't even agree on the
> analysis. Even less if the solution isn't 100% complete yet.
>
>> Here is my two sentence solution:
>>
>> Rebasing has enough substantial negative effects on contributions that
>> we'd
>> like to avoid encouraging it and using it in SymPy development. The few
>> benefits that rebasing offers are not worth the cost of the loss
>> contributions.
>>
>> Can you write a two sentence solution to solving the loss of contributions
>> due to git kung fu issues? I'm happy to read it if so.
>
>
> 1) I think the negative effects can be nullified by giving people a
> tried-and-true, undoable git workflow ("I think" is what I meant with
> "incomplete" above).
> 2) Rebasing is the only way to clean up a PR that has undergone several
> rounds of review.
>
> My two-sentence position on the current official policy:
>
> A) Rebasing is indeed a more advanced use of git, so it should never be
> requested, and recommended only with a reference to the explanation of the
> workflow.
> B) The current official policy is too strict, the justifications are either
> bogus or can be avoided.Maybe there is a way of making clear that this is guideline rather than a rule, something like: "Rebasing is sometimes useful, but, please check with your PR reviewers before doing a rebase, for the reasons given below. Your reviewers will also be careful about rebasing; our policy is that all current reviewers of a particular PR should agree that a rebase is necessary before suggesting you do one. In particular, if you are trying to update with the main Sympy codebase, we much prefer you merge rather than rebase." ? I've certainly done PRs where I had a set of changes that I had to rewrite completely on the basis of comments, so that the full history would have been useless and distracting, and an interactive rebase was obviously the best way to clean that up. It seems like a good idea to allow for that possibility, which I think is the main case Jo is worrying about. Cheers, Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAH6Pt5pSXE%3DXZdPLfCsgZs7C_ZtpWb%3DM_Y5qZGVEVK9Y-xh6Hw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
