Hi, It seems that you’re no stranger to version control systems (VCS), but new to git. I think it's important in this case to recognise that git is a distributed VCS. That means that you have (a clone of) a repository on your own, and gerrit is an online tool on the origin repository. You can commit to your own repository as much as you want, and decide to push to gerrit when you’re done. Being done thus means having your changes completed, or wanting to share it with, or reviewed by others. Gerrit provides the infrastructure for that. The first case is assumed when a commit appears in gerrit, if it’s a Work In Progress a marker ‘[WIP]’ is requested to be prefixed on the commit summary line. Before you push to gerrit you may manipulate your repository as you like (squash commits, rebase the branch, etc). After pushing to gerrit you should refrain from ‘changing history’ like this. Additional work and commits are however possible. I hope this highlights the difference between your own repository and gerrit a little.
Thanks, Jaap > On 1 Jan 2018, at 23:44, Craig Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm curious whether each submission to gerrit must be a single commit. I'm > accustomed with other source management systems to making a branch and then > committing fairly frequently. I would do intermediate commits before I had > anything complete enough to be added to the mainline code of what I was > working on. > > I'm new to git and gerrit, but it seems like gerrit wants each submission to > be a single commit. > > What is the best style? Should I do a commit, and then amend it as I continue > to develop? > > Craig Jackson ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
