Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apex.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKJfLDMz=OPuYHcWL-DqqroW1ebGjMHePu4p-P8XtzPox1YFjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAA7LveGZ3UoBhP+seLNXFQw6ka-ZMKh1bvqcj92Hy1ZxOoixdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADS+zCsREqz7MVRUhRa64u2xhr4ZXkn7s6HAFR1uX0VZJFT1Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA7LveGKwywk4G2OQ1nV3oD-nGNbB1VhfOwf4Hadez31K45Ffg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADS+zCueHZXEcR0aYDLcAoj1740Bi2uX7pgomMrBFpYVfpf21w@mail.gmail.com>
	<7F7FAF5F-73AA-4243-82BE-FBECCF41C7A0@capitalone.com>
	<5637CF08.70804@datatorrent.com>
	<E416B812-93C7-4410-8568-BBA996DDCC09@datatorrent.com>
	<C1B5A19A-0455-45A2-99EF-32D823DA602A@classsoftware.com>
	<5637F050.3000708@datatorrent.com>
	<CAA7LveEx9mGCMhjPR92R9U0cTnsd8NJzJzi4+NxEx8UJjO6SFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJfLDMz=OPuYHcWL-DqqroW1ebGjMHePu4p-P8XtzPox1YFjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:27:47 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAMqituMx5Vf9m0ksV=vr=D4CZNH2-30REaqF9oqTsco7gtF9+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pull request review commits
From: David Yan <david@datatorrent.com>
To: dev@apex.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2abc2306270052398cd8e

--001a11c2abc2306270052398cd8e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with Thomas.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Weise <thomas@datatorrent.com> wrote=
:

> Large features are typically worked on by multiple authors and attributio=
n
> needs to be preserved.
>
> Multiple commits by the same author that don't carry meaning to anyone el=
se
> and/or occur to address PR review comments should be combined. This
> consistently holds for the single author commit PR review as it does for
> the multi-author feature work.
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pramod@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If you are going to allow multiple commits in a pull request when there
> are
> > multiple authors I don't see why to have the restriction to merge alway=
s,
> > even after pull request has been submitted, to a single commit when the=
re
> > is one author. I just find it very contradictory that history is being
> > suppressed after the code has come into the open, by virtue of it being
> > submitted in a pull request, when the whole point of version control is
> the
> > exact opposite.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There is no difference whether pull request is created by committer o=
r
> > non
> > > committer, both need to create fork as described in
> > > http://apex.incubator.apache.org/contributing.html and squash commits
> as
> > > described in item #7. Only committer is able to merge from the fork t=
o
> > the
> > > ASF master repository and git will preserve the author (or authors if
> > there
> > > are multiple commits from different authors).
> > >
> > > The recommendation to squash commit is not much different from other
> ASF
> > > projects commit policy where contributor submits single patch that is
> > later
> > > merged by a committer. Committer is not responsible for squashing
> > commits,
> > > this should be done by the contributor.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Vlad
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/2/15 14:19, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> You may want to be careful if changes were made by multiple authors =
or
> > on
> > >> behalf of someone else (i.e. pull request by a non committer),
> > especially
> > >> if any of them have not signed an ICLA. IP provenance needs to be
> > >> preservered. In those cases I=E2=80=99d suggest not squashing commit=
s.
> > >>
> > >> Justin
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--001a11c2abc2306270052398cd8e--